<div dir="ltr">The difference between "requests" and "requires" is subtile :-). <div>By the way, which OSD principle could possibly been violated here? </div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">>Since this license strikes me as being sort of a counterpart of the</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">>EUPL in Europe, and since it seems a weak copyleft, GPL incompatible</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">>license too, have you considered an express GPL* compatibility clause</span><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div><div style><font color="#500050" face="arial, sans-serif">While submissions to the original project must be</font><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#500050"> "</font></font>governed by the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, without any additional terms or conditions", it seems indeed that:</div><div style>- Redistribution of derivatives;</div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">- </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Larger Work obtained by combining Subject Software with
separate software not governed by the terms and conditions of the license;</span></div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">may be done under any licence providing different terms, provide it otherwise complies "with the terms and conditions provided in this agreement"<br>
</span><div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Therefore do we really need an express GPL (or EUPL) compatibility clause? It seems that both licences could be used when redistributing derivatives or larger works as a whole...</span></div>
<div style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">This is indeed outside OSD requirements, but good to know for interoperability...</span></div><div style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Best,<br>
P-E</span></div><div style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/6/24 Karl Fogel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kfogel@red-bean.com" target="_blank">kfogel@red-bean.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">Carlo Piana <<a href="mailto:osi-review@piana.eu">osi-review@piana.eu</a>> writes:<br>
>A couple of quick remarks:<br>
><br>
>* Paragraph K (optional) requires the recipient to register themselves<br>
>as a condition to use the software, and this seems an OSD incompatible<br>
>requirement to me.<br>
<br>
</div>I thought it only "requests", not requires. (The language could be<br>
even more emphatic about how it's merely a request, but it does seem<br>
pretty unambiguous even as it's currently worded).<br>
<div class="im"><br>
>* Since this license strikes me as being sort of a counterpart of the<br>
>EUPL in Europe, and since it seems a weak copyleft, GPL incompatible<br>
>license too, have you considered an express GPL* compatibility clause<br>
>(which is not a requirement to be OSD-compliant, just asking)?<br>
<br>
</div>Interesting question!<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-K<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
>On 07/06/2013 17:23, Geurts, Bryan A. (GSFC-1401) wrote:<br>
><br>
> Please accept for OSI review and approval the attached NASA<br>
> Open Source Agreement 2.0 (NOSA 2.0) as a replacement for the<br>
> existing NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3.<br>
><br>
> NASA proposes that NOSA 2.0 be placed in the license<br>
> proliferation category of SPECIAL PURPOSE LICENSES. It is designed<br>
> to be used by US Government Agencies releasing original software<br>
> to the public.<br>
><br>
> Accordingly, once NOSA 2.0 has been approved, NASA proposes<br>
> that the current NOSA 1.3 be retired (with full government<br>
> retirement benefits, such as they are).<br>
><br>
> This new version of the NOSA retains clauses unique to<br>
> government licensing e.g. choice of law, disclaimer of warranties<br>
> and treatment of civil servant contributors, and yet removes some<br>
> of the more unsavory requirements of the earlier version, such as<br>
> the requirement of contributors to warrant that they are the<br>
> original authors of their contribution.<br>
><br>
> Please direct any questions about this submittal to me as<br>
> License Steward for the NOSA 2.0 and 1.3. Thank you for your<br>
> consideration.<br>
><br>
> Bryan A. Geurts<br>
><br>
> Chief Patent Counsel<br>
><br>
> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center<br>
><br>
> Code 140.1, 8800 Greenbelt Road<br>
><br>
> Greenbelt, MD 20771<br>
><br>
> Phone: 301-286-7352<br>
><br>
> Fax: 310-286-9502<br>
><br>
> This document, including any attachments, contains information<br>
> that is confidential, protected by the attorney-client or other<br>
> privileges, or constitutes non-public information. It is intended<br>
> only for the intended recipients. If you are not an intended<br>
> recipient, please take appropriate steps to destroy this document<br>
> in its entirety and notify the sender of its destruction. Use,<br>
> dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this information by<br>
> unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.<br>
><br>
> This communication should only be used for the particular<br>
> matter discussed herein. Changes in circumstances and changes in<br>
> law can greatly alter any current legal advice.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
>License-review mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br>
><br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>License-review mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz<br>legal expert - Joinup.eu</div><div class="gmail_extra"><a href="mailto:pe.schmitz@googlemail.com">pe.schmitz@googlemail.com</a><br>
<br></div></div>