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

[Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz]

The difference between "requests" and "requires" is subtile :-).
By the way, which OSD principle could possibly been violated here?

>Since this license strikes me as being sort of a counterpart of the
>EUPL in Europe, and since it seems a weak copyleft, GPL incompatible
>license too, have you considered an express GPL* compatibility clause

While submissions to the original project must be "governed by the terms
and conditions of this Agreement, without any additional terms or
conditions", it seems indeed that:
- Redistribution of derivatives;
- Larger Work obtained by combining Subject Software with separate software
not governed by the terms and conditions of the license;
may be done under any licence providing different terms, provide it
otherwise complies "with the terms and conditions provided in this
agreement"

Therefore do we really need an express GPL (or EUPL) compatibility clause?
It seems that both licences could be used when redistributing derivatives
or larger works as a whole...
This is indeed outside OSD requirements, but good to know for
interoperability...
Best,
P-E



2013/6/24 Karl Fogel <kfogel at red-bean.com>

> Carlo Piana <osi-review at piana.eu> writes:
> >A couple of quick remarks:
> >
> >* Paragraph K (optional) requires the recipient to register themselves
> >as a condition to use the software, and this seems an OSD incompatible
> >requirement to me.
>
> I thought it only "requests", not requires.  (The language could be
> even more emphatic about how it's merely a request, but it does seem
> pretty unambiguous even as it's currently worded).
>
> >* Since this license strikes me as being sort of a counterpart of the
> >EUPL in Europe, and since it seems a weak copyleft, GPL incompatible
> >license too, have you considered an express GPL* compatibility clause
> >(which is not a requirement to be OSD-compliant, just asking)?
>
> Interesting question!
>
> -K
>
> >On 07/06/2013 17:23, Geurts, Bryan A. (GSFC-1401) wrote:
> >
> >        Please accept for OSI review and approval the attached NASA
> >    Open Source Agreement 2.0 (NOSA 2.0) as a replacement for the
> >    existing NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3.
> >
> >        NASA proposes that NOSA 2.0 be placed in the license
> >    proliferation category of SPECIAL PURPOSE LICENSES. It is designed
> >    to be used by US Government Agencies releasing original software
> >    to the public.
> >
> >        Accordingly, once NOSA 2.0 has been approved, NASA proposes
> >    that the current NOSA 1.3 be retired (with full government
> >    retirement benefits, such as they are).
> >
> >        This new version of the NOSA retains clauses unique to
> >    government licensing e.g. choice of law, disclaimer of warranties
> >    and treatment of civil servant contributors, and yet removes some
> >    of the more unsavory requirements of the earlier version, such as
> >    the requirement of contributors to warrant that they are the
> >    original authors of their contribution.
> >
> >        Please direct any questions about this submittal to me as
> >    License Steward for the NOSA 2.0 and 1.3. Thank you for your
> >    consideration.
> >
> >        Bryan A. Geurts
> >
> >        Chief Patent Counsel
> >
> >        NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
> >
> >        Code 140.1, 8800 Greenbelt Road
> >
> >        Greenbelt, MD 20771
> >
> >        Phone: 301-286-7352
> >
> >        Fax: 310-286-9502
> >
> >        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.
> >
> >        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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    _______________________________________________
> >License-review mailing list
> >License-review at opensource.org
> >http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >License-review mailing list
> >License-review at opensource.org
> >http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>



-- 
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
legal expert - Joinup.eu
pe.schmitz at googlemail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20130624/42d11f9c/attachment.html>