<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'>Richard,<br>Please help us know how to proceed with approval. At this point we are willing to do most anything to advance the process of approval for NOSA 2.0. May I suggest a telecom between you and members of our NASA OS working group. You seem to be the only remaining voice of dissent, but anyone else who would like to participate would be welcome. <br>Thanks for your attention.<br>Bryan<br><br><hr>From: superbag22@hotmail.com<br>To: fontana@sharpeleven.org; license-review@opensource.org<br>Subject: RE: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions<br>Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:43:30 -0600<br><br>
<style><!--
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {
padding:0px;
}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage {
font-size:12pt;
font-family:Calibri;
}
--></style>
<div dir=ltr>Thanks, Richard, for the quick reply. So what is the next step?<br>Bryan<br><br>> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:28:24 -0400<br>> From: fontana@sharpeleven.org<br>> To: license-review@opensource.org<br>> Subject: Re: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions<br>> <br>> Hi Bryan,<br>> <br>> I recently posted an update on several of the licenses that have been<br>> submitted for review, including NOSA 2.0:<br>> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-September/001144.html<br>> <br>> First let me personally apologize for the amount of time that has<br>> passed since you first submitted NOSA 2.0 for approval. It's highly<br>> likely that if I had just kept my mouth shut NOSA 2.0 would have been<br>> approved in November 2013 following Luis Villa's recommendation.<br>> <br>> Just speaking for myself here: I believe NOSA 2.0 is salvageable but I<br>> feel it may need some nontrivial revisions to reach the point where I<br>> personally would recommend it for OSI approval. For a potential open<br>> source license it is so complex that I just don't know if mailing list<br>> discussion is an adequate basis of review and analysis. Yet that is<br>> also the only good way (given the present state of review tools) to<br>> get community feedback on the license.<br>> <br>> I'm really close to being tempted to suggest passing redlines back and<br>> forth (which particularly pains me as the non-famous author of the<br>> Harvey Birdman Rule).<br>> <br>> Richard<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 01:36:38PM -0600, Bryan Geurts wrote:<br>> > Has there been any action taken on the NOSA 2.0 yet? We at NASA continue<br>> > to anxiously await approval. If I remember correctly, we first submitted it<br>> > for approval about two years ago.<br>> > <br>> > Bryan Geurts<br>> > <br>> > > 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/<br>> > 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/<br>> > 000484.html<br>> > ><br>> > > "BSD-based anti-patent license"<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-February/<br>> > 000522.html<br>> > ><br>> > > Modular Open Software License 'working draft 5'<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/<br>> > 000547.html<br>> > ><br>> > > Public Software License<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/<br>> > 000750.html<br>> > ><br>> > > Russian Permissive Free Software License<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/<br>> > 000758.html<br>> > ><br>> > > eCos License version 2.0<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/<br>> > 000853.html<br>> > ><br>> > > GG License 1.0<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-January/<br>> > 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/<br>> > 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>> <br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > License-review mailing list<br>> > License-review@opensource.org<br>> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review<br>> <br> </div>
</div></body>
</html>