[License-discuss] The pro se license constructor

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

While there were problems with NOSA 2.0 it was an improvement on NOSA 1.3.

But as I said, that ship has sailed and perception is perception.

You can take the observation I provided that the concerns of unfairness are not without merit in intended spirit of hoping the process gets better as opposed to just me grinding old axes...or not.


From: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com<mailto:bruce at perens.com>>
Date: Sunday, Mar 17, 2019, 11:15 AM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor

Oops - sorry about the incorrect Latin.

Nigel, if lawyers all agreed there would be no need for courts. OSI had it's own counsel arguing against elements of NOSA, and there were other such counsel on the list. While I have only been participating for a year, I saw significant problems in the license and concurred with the OSI representative. My feedback from discussion with real NASA users is that they don't like the license either.

Thanks

Bruce
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 07:05 Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu<mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>> wrote:
Again, speaking only for myself, but I find it interesting that the need for legal review is considered so important but when a practicing IP lawyer in a specific domain claims that certain license constructs are required to meet the required regulations for a governmental agency that laypersons can simply say "Nope" and that's pretty much the end of that.

I guess that ship has sailed and I should simply just drop it in the interest of harmony but if there is soul searching to be done by the OSI then it would be wise to consider why it appears that the current state of affairs on license approval is perceived to be unfair.

From: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com<mailto:bruce at perens.com>>
Date: Friday, Mar 15, 2019, 4:32 PM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>>
Subject: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor

While we are discussing license approval, this morning's submission had no legal review, the excuse being that it was a mashup of what was presumably the work of unidentified lawyers.

There is great danger in using a license that has had no legal review, since you have little idea of how it will work in court. The per se license constructor transmits that danger to others who use their license.

I thus feel all such things should be rejected, although the reason is entirely outside of the OSD.

    Thanks

    Bruce
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at lists.opensource.org<mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190317/49d43637/attachment-0001.html>