[License-review] For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement 2.0

[Carlo Piana]

On 09/07/2013 12:57, Engel Nyst wrote:
> On 07/09/2013 08:38 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
>> I know of no precedent where "request" would have
>> anything other than the plain language meaning you'd expect it to
>> have.
>>
> PortAudio license in its current form[1] reads: "The text above
> constitutes the entire PortAudio license; however, the PortAudio
> community also makes the following non-binding requests".
> The previous version's license[2] has changed this text from a license
> condition: "Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the
> Software is *requested* to send the modifications to the original
> developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version."
>
> Indeed, to me the previous version reads clearly the "request" as
> license condition.
> Which is why (I assume) the current version language attempts to make
> clear that it's not legally binding. I don't know the background of
> PortAudio community and license, the comparison of the contents is very
> clear though.
>
> I would note, the NASA agreement text also reads to me as license condition.
> I'm not sure why exactly it would be there if it's not meant as
> condition, or it can be very explicitly delimited as not part of
> conditions. Obligatory note: IANAL.
>
>

Despite the language correctly interpreted is not a condition, as many
pointed out, the clause is open to ambiguity. Ambiguity that shall be
resolved by the submitter, IMHO.

Cheers

Carlo