[License-review] NOSA 2.0 - 'Up or Down' vote

Fri Jan 6 14:45:58 UTC 2017

Thank you.

On 1/5/17, 6:10 PM, "License-review on behalf of Richard Fontana"
<license-review-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of
fontana at opensource.org> wrote:

>On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 10:34:03PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> Richard,
>> 
>> Are you also going to ask about asymmetry with permissive upstream and
>> copyleft downstream?  This was an action item from the UCL license
>> discussion.
>
>I will raise that issue, yes.
> 
>> It should be conveyed that no one else apparently had significant issue
>> with NOSA 2.0 and it is a special purpose license for government use.  I
>> believe that more people recommended approval (more than 1) than
>>rejection
>> (1). I don¹t believe that you convinced anyone else that NOSA v2
>>violated
>> OSD or that it would require ³substantial revision² to do so.
>
>I believe all that is correct. I will convey that.
> 
>> That you
>> disagreed with NASA¹s interpretation of 51 USC 20141 is not a failure of
>> the process or indication that the license is too complex for the needs
>>of
>> the Government Open Source Software (GOSS) community.
>
>I agree. I think the 51 USC 20141 issue was fairly minor.
>
>> I would ask that the review process be amended that licenses
>>automatically
>> go to an up or down vote within 6 months of submission unless further
>> delay is requested by the submitter and that the recommendation to the
>> board as to the opinion of this list be as transparent as possible and
>>in
>> the format that Luis used in his reports.
>
>Okay, those are good suggestions. I will propose those.
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Nigel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/5/17, 3:57 PM, "License-review on behalf of Richard Fontana"
>> <license-review-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of
>> fontana at opensource.org> wrote:
>> 
>> >As some know, NOSA 2.0 [1] has been languishing in a limbo review
>> >state for an extremely long time.
>> >
>> >In my opinion, NOSA 2.0 is, in its current form, an overly complex and
>> >badly drafted license. I cannot gain enough confidence that it meets
>> >the letter and spirit of the Open Source Definition, without
>> >substantial revision, which the license steward seems disinclined to
>> >undertake. This is just my view and does not reflect any sort of
>> >consensus view, although I am not sure one could really demonstrate a
>> >consensus view on the other side. (It should be noted that Luis Villa,
>> >a former OSI board member and one of my personal heroes, actually did
>> >recommend early on that the OSI approve NOSA 2.0, but this never went
>> >to a vote. [2])
>> >
>> >The reason I kept the review alive, in some sense, is twofold. I
>> >thought that we could somehow use this forum to collectively revise
>> >the license, but that did not work, in part because of the high
>> >complexity of the license. (This forum is by contrast not too bad at
>> >dealing with the more typical shorter, simpler license texts.) I also
>> >believed for a long time that it was contrary to de facto OSI policy
>> >to reject a license outright, as opposed to gently directing the
>> >license submitter to go back to the drawing board. I later discovered
>> >that outright license rejection, though it seems to have been uncommon
>> >if it occurred at all in the past several years, was sometimes done
>> >earlier in the OSI's history.
>> >
>> >A number of people, including the license steward and submitter, have
>> >asked at various times out of understandable frustration that there be
>> >an 'up or down' vote on NOSA 2.0 rather than a continuation of the
>> >current situation. There is an OSI board meeting next Wednesday. I
>> >will place the 'up or down' vote on the agenda, and (with reluctance)
>> >I will recommend that the vote be 'down' out of concern for the
>> >integrity of the OSD and the license approval process. It is
>> >conceivable that the OSI board will wish to treat NOSA 2.0 in some
>> >manner other than 'up or down' though.
>> >
>> >If anyone has comments on NOSA 2.0 that they'd like the OSI board to
>> >consider please provide them before next Wednesday.
>> >
>> >Richard
>> >
>> >[1] See e.g.:
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/001944.h
>>>tm
>> >l
>> >(original submission)
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-June/002177.h
>>>tm
>> >l
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-December/0022
>>>96
>> >.html
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-September/002
>>>47
>> >8.html
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-February/0027
>>>16
>> >.html
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-February/thre
>>>ad
>> >.html
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-February/0027
>>>18
>> >.html
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-March/002721.
>>>ht
>> >ml
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-March/002722.
>>>ht
>> >ml
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-March/002723.
>>>ht
>> >ml
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-March/002724.
>>>ht
>> >ml
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-March/002731.
>>>ht
>> >ml
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-April/002735.
>>>ht
>> >ml
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-April/002737.
>>>ht
>> >ml
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-April/002736.
>>>ht
>> >ml
>> >
>> >[2] 
>> 
>>>https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-October/00199
>>>9.
>> >html
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >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
>_______________________________________________
>License-review mailing list
>License-review at opensource.org
>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review