[License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)

[Nigel T]

Bruce,

If NASA officially goes with some other license that would be fine for me personally (I would prefer ECLv2) but that’s not the point.  Some significant NASA projects are on NOSA and an updated license would be useful.

Also, not all the engineers and scientists are aware of all the legal implications.  I have seen people release code under GPL even though they didn’t have the authority or legal rights to do so. 

Nigel

> On Sep 29, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
> 
> Simon hasn't shown me any proposed text for such a FAQ and I'm afraid he'll want me to write it.
> 
> Can I bring up the NASA license? I have now been to the Cal Poly Cubesat Workshop, the NASA Planetary Cubesat Symposium at Goddard Space Flight Center, and the Open Source Cubesat Workshop at ESA Madrid. At each of these conferences I have met NASA scientists who are creating Open Source software. They haven't ever been favorable about the NASA license, and those who chose their own licenses have in general avoided it. Indeed, on Tuesday in Madrid, Jay Trimble of Ames and the Open Mission Control Technologies project was quite dismissive of it, basing his choice on familiarity of the Apache license to the community rather than the terms of the NASA license.
> 
>     Thanks
> 
>     Bruce
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:46 AM Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Okay, that makes sense.
>> 
>> How about the license review faq?  That seems like a good place for this clarifying information that appears to be opaque or “unwritten” for some submitters.
>> 
>> I would also like to know if changing the OSD and the interpretation of the OSD for license approval is simply a board decision or something the entire membership has a vote.
>> 
>> I don’t know where this discussion really belongs here but seems relevant to the participants on license-review if the criteria has or is changing.  
>> 
>> > On Sep 29, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Nigel, it doesn't really look like the motion you copied has anything to do with license-review. I am the standards chair and am representing OSI to standards bodies.
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > License-review mailing list
>> > License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
> Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder, Open Source Initiative
> President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom Initiative.
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180929/c2691883/attachment.html>