<div dir="ltr">Hi Bryan,<div><br></div><div>My general impression in the past has been that NASA has been unwilling to consider making changes to NOSA 2.0. If you are willing to submit a revised draft that:</div><div>* is written with a view to maximizing clarity and comprehensibility, particularly for individual software developers</div><div>* takes care not to give, or have the appearance of giving, special legal privileges to NASA over other licensors and licensees (or else to give a clear justification to us of why that sort of structure is necessary) then I think we can make progress, perhaps rapid progress, towards approval. </div><div></div><div><br></div><div>Richard</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Geurts, Bryan A. (GSFC-1401) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bryan.a.geurts@nasa.gov" target="_blank">bryan.a.geurts@nasa.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-6637652617332811418WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">All,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I am just now seeing this after having been out over the long weekend, so apologies for a slow response. We at NASA are very pleased to have someone finally express a willingness to work with us on certifying
NOSA 2.0! Apologies that I didn’t respond to Bruce’s December email, but, in looking back over my emails from that period, I couldn’t find it. Believe me, we at NASA are more than ready to engage any and all interested parties in order to come to a resolution;
whatever you need, we will provide as quickly as possible. As you know, NASA first applied for certification nearly five years ago and has been baffled by a lack of action on the part of OSI ever since. We responded to every comment from the license-review
group as well as from the OSI license-review coordinator (Richard Fontana), but nothing has come of it so far. In all honesty, we are now discussing the need to upgrade from NOSA 2.0 to NOSA 3.0, but that’s a discussion for another day, assuming we can get
approval for 2.0 in short order. Nigel Tzeng at AFL (below), Cem Karan at ARL, and others have been vocal advocates for NOSA 2.0 (many thanks to them) as some of the many persons and organizations, in particular government organizations, in need of the unique
application of an open source license tailored for government created works. From a legal perspective, government works are in a different category than other software because of a section of the US Copyright Statute (17 USC 105), which precludes the US federal
government from creating works covered by a US copyright (foreign copyrights are allowed, as are copyrights assigned or licensed to the government). Since copyright is the core legal theory under which open source software licenses operate, special accommodations
must be made if government created works are to be protectable at all. The NOSA is all about those special accommodations for government works; no other OSD compliant license addresses these issues. NOSA 1.3, approved well over a decade ago, is admittedly
a bit klunky by today’s standards, but represents a huge step forward for the times; NOSA 2.0 is several steps closer to the “mainstream” OSI-approved licenses. Both licenses were designed to be fully compliant with the OSD.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Please help me understand the next step forward. We have an open source legal team at NASA that wrote both NOSA 1.3 and 2.0, that meets regularly and is anxious to address any concerns. We are happy to engage
by email, by phone or even in person if that will move the process forward.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Bryan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1f497d">Bryan A. Geurts<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1f497d">Chief Patent Counsel<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1f497d">NASA Goddard Space Flight Center<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1f497d">Code 140.1, 8800 Greenbelt Road<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1f497d">Greenbelt, MD 20771<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1f497d">Phone: <a href="tel:(301)%20286-7352" value="+13012867352" target="_blank">301-286-7352</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1f497d">Fax: <a href="tel:(301)%20286-9502" value="+13012869502" target="_blank">301-286-9502</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d">This document, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, protected by the attorney-client or other privileges, or constitutes non-public information. It is intended
only for the intended recipients. If you are not an intended recipient, please take appropriate steps to destroy this document in its entirety and notify the sender of its destruction. Use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this information
by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d">This communication should only be used for the particular matter discussed herein. Changes in circumstances and changes in law can greatly alter any current legal advice.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:<a href="mailto:Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu" target="_blank">Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu</a><wbr>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@lists.<wbr>opensource.org</a>>; <a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil" target="_blank">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil</a>; Geurts, Bryan A. (GSFC-1401) <<a href="mailto:bryan.a.geurts@nasa.gov" target="_blank">bryan.a.geurts@nasa.gov</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] Fwd: [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA 2.0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bruce,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There was no reply on license review because you didn’t send it to either license review or Bryan.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-December/thread.html" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/<wbr>pipermail/license-review_<wbr>lists.opensource.org/2017-<wbr>December/thread.html</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s been over FOUR YEARS since NOSA 2.0 was submitted in June of 2013. Maybe you should have asked these questions in 2013 rather than 2017?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In any case, according to the archive of the license-review lists from November 2017 to February 2018, NASA was ignored. If the board has formally rejected the NOSA 2.0 submission in the meantime that’s just awesome communication on the
lists.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By blocking the approval of NOSA 2.0 the OSI has blocked the fix for the section that you have an issue with in v1.3 (original work of authorship clause). If you were interested in seeing that language removed then you should have advocated
for approval of NOSA 2.0.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I noted in License-Discuss, if one the agencies that has been forward thinking and generating GOSS code for public use as part of their strategy for nearly two decades under the NOSA license (<a href="https://open.nasa.gov" target="_blank">https://open.nasa.gov</a>
and <a href="https://code.nasa.gov" target="_blank">https://code.nasa.gov</a> ) and likely has released one of the oldest GOSS/PD codebases around (<a href="https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11)" target="_blank">https://github.com/<wbr>chrislgarry/Apollo-11)</a> <wbr>believes it needs to update
that license then the OSI shouldn’t continue to be a roadblock for improving that
<b>already approved special purpose license </b>but instead be helpful and <b>responsive</b>.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">According to Open Nasa they have:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">39,054 Open Data Sets<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal">356 Open Code Repositories (155 on GitHub under the NASA account)<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal">41 Open APIs<u></u><u></u></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think NASA has met and exceeded any “higher standard” set for Open Source and Open Data advocacy and performance.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nigel<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On 2/16/18, 4:38 PM, "License-review on behalf of Bruce Perens" <<a href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review-bounces@lists.<wbr>opensource.org</a> on behalf of
<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com" target="_blank">bruce@perens.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
I did not get any reply from NASA when I first sent this, in early December.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Thanks<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> Bruce<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>
From: Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com" target="_blank">bruce@perens.com</a>><br>
Date: Fri, Dec 8, 2017, 21:39<br>
Subject: Re: [License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA 2.0<br>
To: License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@opensource.org</a><wbr>>, <<a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil" target="_blank">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil</a>>, <<a href="mailto:bryan.a.geurts@nasa.gov" target="_blank">bryan.a.geurts@nasa.gov</a>><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">> Could you (meaning you and the board) please give us a breakdown of what the issues were?
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">and<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<br>
> <span style="color:#1f497d">If we resubmit, will we be engaged or simply ignored, as before?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1f497d">I didn't see any public response to these questions. I am not a member of the OSI board, but I am the creator of the Open Source Definition. As a member of the license review committee
(admission being equivalent to being granted a subscription to this mailing list) I would be willing to look at a new submission and make a recommendation.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1f497d">I think the missing piece in your previous submissions is that they were not a good deal for the Open Source developer community, only a license engineered to grant maximal protection
to NASA. The board cited legal ambiguities in their response, these are of course to the disadvantage of the community. Individual developers do not have the easy access to counsel and the legal budget that NASA has, and it's an even worse day for
<i>them </i>when they are sued. To give a personal example, my recent participation in an Open-source-related lawsuit will probably exceed my year's income in legal fees. So, I believe that both NASA and OSI should place the individual developer's protection
before that of NASA if we are all to pursue Open Source fairly.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1f497d">In addition, the language in 1.3 that prevents combination of Open Source that is not an original work of authorship of the contributor seems to me to be inimical to the concept of Open
Source. I would not have recommended its approval. I would be especially interested in seeing a submission that removed that language.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1f497d"> Thanks</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1f497d"> Bruce</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.<wbr>opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/license-<wbr>review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>