<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>The NASA OS team is meeting this afternoon. Is there any update I can provide regarding the NOSA 2.0 certification?</div>
<div>Bryan<br>
<br>
<div class="acompli_signature">Sent from <a href="http://aka.ms/Ox5hz3">Outlook</a></div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM -0700, "Bryan Geurts" <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:superbag22@hotmail.com" target="_blank">superbag22@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<style>
<!--
.x_hmmessage
{margin:0px;
padding:0px}
body.x_hmmessage
{font-size:12pt;
font-family:Calibri}
-->
</style>
<div class="x_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>
</div>
</body>
</html>