[License-review] License Committee Report - January 2017

[Richard Fontana]

There was a brief discussion of the issue you and others raised, but no
resolution. While there's some possibility of further future discussion,
I think the current Board is not inclined to give the equivalent of
"advisory opinions" on the OSD, for better or worse. It is probably
better to get clarity on this issue through actual submission of a
license embodying some sort of license asymmetry. 

Richard




On Wed, Feb 8, 2017, at 06:57 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> Richard,
> 
> Was there discussion on asymmetry?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Nigel
> 
> On 1/23/17, 3:34 PM, "License-review on behalf of Richard Fontana"
> <license-review-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of
> fontana at opensource.org> wrote:
> 
>     On Sun, Jan 8, 2017, at 07:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>     [...]
>     > NASA Open Source Agreeement 2.0
>     > ===============================
>     [...]
>     > Recommendation: Reject.
>     
>     At the last OSI board meeting, the OSI decided not to hold a vote on
>     NOSA 2.0, and instead requested that I prepare a document providing
>     my
>     comments about the license. 
>     
>     Richard
>         
>      
>     _______________________________________________
>     License-review mailing list
>     License-review at opensource.org
>     https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>     
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review