[License-review] Fwd: [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA 2.0

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Mon Apr 30 20:03:44 UTC 2018


P.S. I am at the Cal Poly Cubesat Developers conference through Wednesday.
If any of your staff happen to be there, I would be happy to meet with them.

Thanks

Bruce

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 12:58 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> Mark,
>
> Thank you very much for re-engaging. I am looking forward to hearing your
> discussion and explanations. I hope you and the group are open to the
> possibility of re-drafting. Besides the issues on which you can enlighten
> us, I believe that an increase in clarity of the actual license document is
> possible.
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Bruce Perens
> License Committee Member
> Standards Chair
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 10:46 AM Dvorscak, Mark P. (HQ-MC000) <
> mark.p.dvorscak at nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Good afternoon all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Apologies for the delay in responding to the questions posed by OSI
>> related to NASA’s request for approval of NOSA 2.0 We have had some
>> internal software policy issues that needed attention and took priority. I
>> have asked Rob Padilla, who leads our Open Source Software legal team, to
>> re-engage with you on the outstanding issues. You can expect Rob to provide
>> explanations and answer the questions posed. Please continue to copy Bryan
>> Geurts and myself on future correspondence with Rob.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your consideration of our request, and we look forward to
>> resolution of the remaining issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mark Dvorscak
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Mark P. Dvorscak*
>>
>> Agency Counsel for Intellectual Property
>>
>> Office of General Counsel
>>
>> NASA
>>
>> O (202) 358-0646
>>
>> C  (202) 308-4337
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* License-review [mailto:
>> license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruce Perens
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:13 PM
>>
>>
>> *To:* License submissions for OSI review <
>> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>>
>> *Cc:* Padilla, Rob (ARC-DL) <robert.m.padilla at nasa.gov>; Geurts, Bryan
>> A. (GSFC-1401) <bryan.a.geurts at nasa.gov>
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [License-review] Fwd: [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA
>> 2.0
>>
>>
>>
>> > and that they may not fully or correctly understand the complexities
>> and requirements on the USG as understood by USG lawyers
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not admitted to the Bar and am likely to miss some issues. When that
>> is the problem, we would like to see those things explained.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> As long as the experts from the open source community understands that
>> this is a special purpose license for the USG and that they may not fully
>> or correctly understand the complexities and requirements on the USG as
>> understood by USG lawyers that seems useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> I see no need to make NOSA a general purpose reusable license for anyone
>> outside of the USG (i.e. “works for everyone”).  There is a special purpose
>> license category for a reason.  This point seems completely lost on
>> opponents of any movement forward by the Government Open Source Software
>> community.
>>
>>
>>
>> Code.gov is moving along and frankly, having a large catalog of code
>> under the government-wide reuse category fulfills a large portion of the
>> needs of government.  Making it harder to go to the next step and open
>> sourcing the code seems counterproductive.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/13/18, 10:53 AM, "License-review on behalf of Simon Phipps" <
>> license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org on behalf of
>> simon at webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce:  Thanks for all the time you have invested in this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bryan:  I concur with Bruce and also hope you'll take the comments on
>> textual complexity into account. I would suggest that in addition to
>> attorneys you retain an expert in open source community matters from
>> outside NASA (in fact from outside US government circles generally) to
>> assist with review. I am sure members of this list can make recommendations
>> if you need them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bryan,
>>
>> I reviewed the NASA Open Source Agreement about 20 days ago. I have
>> continued to develop my understanding of the license, including from
>> discussion with Nigel and John Cowan. I could do a third pass of review
>> based on my improved understanding, but the result would still be that I
>> concur with the OSI board's decision to decline to accept the license as
>> written. I would encourage you to work on 3.0 and to do peer review with
>> other attorneys before submitting it, but I'm eager to see 3.0 and hope
>> that you can arrive at a license that works for everyone.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Bruce Perens
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Simon Phipps*  http://webmink.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *in a personal capacity*
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180430/9d217325/attachment.html>


More information about the License-review mailing list