<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Has there been any action taken on the NOSA 2.0 yet? We at NASA continue to anxiously await approval. If I remember correctly, we first submitted it for approval about two years ago.<BR> <BR>Bryan Geurts<br> <BR><div>> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:47:06 -0400<br>> From: fontana@opensource.org<br>> To: license-review@opensource.org<br>> Subject: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions<br>> <br>> Hi license-review,<br>> <br>> There are a number of licenses that have been submitted for approval<br>> that have fallen through the cracks. What that number is is<br>> debatable.<br>> <br>> 1. It is agreed by everyone, I think, that the NASA Open Source<br>> Agreement 2.0 was properly formally submitted (more than once, in<br>> fact). <br>> <br>> I intend to post something separately about this one.<br>> <br>> <br>> 2. I went back and looked at the archives of license-review (from the<br>> point of this list's hosting on opensource.org, i.e. late 2011). I<br>> believe that each of the following was arguably a formal request for<br>> OSI approval, with no indication that there was anything formally<br>> lacking in the submission, yet I don't think any of these was<br>> acknowledged by the OSI as having been formally submitted and I<br>> believe no decision was ever made on any of them. Some of these,<br>> particularly the earlier ones, were seen at the time as part of a<br>> troubling wave of "crayon licenses". For at least one or two, it is<br>> likely that the license submitter gave up, not having the tenacity of,<br>> say, Messrs. Geurts or Wright.<br>> <br>> Forget Me Not License<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000072.html<br>> <br>> Svoboda<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-May/000416.html<br>> <br>> No Nonsense Open Source License<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-June/000441.html<br>> <br>> APL AROS Public License<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-July/000451.html<br>> <br>> Symisc Public License<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-September/000484.html<br>> <br>> "BSD-based anti-patent license"<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-February/000522.html<br>> <br>> Modular Open Software License 'working draft 5'<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/000547.html<br>> <br>> Public Software License<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/000750.html<br>> <br>> Russian Permissive Free Software License<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/000758.html<br>> <br>> eCos License version 2.0<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/000853.html<br>> <br>> GG License 1.0<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-January/000968.html<br>> <br>> I am not including here license submissions that I believe it is<br>> fairly clear were withdrawn from consideration by the submitter.<br>> <br>> You might argue that several of these were not really worth extensive<br>> review, but a clear decision ought to have been made nonetheless, and<br>> in any case that view can't apply to *all* of the license submissions<br>> in this set.<br>> <br>> <br>> 3. Really Old license submissions found by Engel Nyst:<br>> (see http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-November/000733.html )<br>> <br>> Zope Public License 2.1<br>> http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07517.html<br>> <br>> wxWidgets (name change of wxWindows)<br>> http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07542.html<br>> <br>> W3C Software License and Notice (2002 version)<br>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/834<br>> <br>> <br>> I am not sure how exhaustive Engel Nyst's research was but I have to<br>> wonder whether there were other lost license approval requests from<br>> the 2005-2011 period.<br>> <br>> I am not sure what if anything we should do about all of these, other<br>> than NOSA 2.0 which clearly requires a decision by the board for the<br>> very patient Mr. Geurts. If perchance anyone reading this was<br>> associated with one of the listed license submissions, by all means<br>> please indicate whether you wish to revive review of the license in<br>> question.<br>> <br>> Is there anything we should do to take better care of license approval<br>> submissions? It was suggested a while back that we consider using an<br>> issue tracker for all license approval requests.<br>> <br>> Richard<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> License-review mailing list<br>> License-review@opensource.org<br>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review<br></div> </div></body>
</html>