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

Tue Feb 20 17:34:33 UTC 2018

Oh, I forgot to mention, the list was down for some days when I first sent
my mail, but as far as I am aware it did go to the license submitter at
their NASA and MIL addresses. I mis-addressed my recent re-send and took
care of that as soon as I saw the bounce.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> Hi Nigel,
>
> My explanation is simple. I wasn't participating in license-review during
> that time. I was called back quite recently due to the problem that OSI was
> having difficulty, on several fronts, explaining the rationale behind
> decisions that I'd made 20 years ago in crafting the OSD. I have been
> filling in the blanks. I agree it was unfortunate that I was not around to
> participate in the earlier reviews of NASA license.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bruce
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Bruce,
>>
>>
>>
>> There was no reply on license review because you didn’t send it to either
>> license review or Bryan.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.
>> opensource.org/2017-December/thread.html
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s been over FOUR YEARS since NOSA 2.0 was submitted in June of 2013.
>> Maybe you should have asked these questions in 2013 rather than 2017?
>>
>>
>>
>> In any case, according to the archive of the license-review lists from
>> November 2017 to February 2018, NASA was ignored.  If the board has
>> formally rejected the NOSA 2.0 submission in the meantime that’s just
>> awesome communication on the lists.
>>
>>
>>
>> By blocking the approval of NOSA 2.0 the OSI has blocked the fix for the
>> section that you have an issue with in v1.3 (original work of authorship
>> clause).  If you were interested in seeing that language removed then you
>> should have advocated for approval of NOSA 2.0.
>>
>>
>>
>> As I noted in License-Discuss, if one the agencies that has been forward
>> thinking and generating GOSS code for public use as part of their strategy
>> for nearly two decades under the NOSA license (https://open.nasa.gov and
>> https://code.nasa.gov ) and likely has released one of the oldest
>> GOSS/PD codebases around (https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11) believes
>> it needs to update that license then the OSI shouldn’t continue to be a
>> roadblock for improving that * already approved special purpose license *but
>> instead be helpful and *responsive*.
>>
>>
>>
>> According to Open Nasa they have:
>>
>>
>>
>>    - 39,054 Open Data Sets
>>    - 356 Open Code Repositories (155 on GitHub under the NASA account)
>>    - 41 Open APIs
>>
>>
>>
>> I think NASA has met and exceeded any “higher standard” set for Open
>> Source and Open Data advocacy and performance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/16/18, 4:38 PM, "License-review on behalf of Bruce Perens" <
>> license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org on behalf of bruce at perens.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I did not get any reply from NASA when I first sent this, in early
>> December.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
>> Date: Fri, Dec 8, 2017, 21:39
>> Subject: Re: [License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA 2.0
>> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>, <
>> cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>, <bryan.a.geurts at nasa.gov>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Could you (meaning you and the board) please give us a breakdown of
>> what the issues were?
>>
>> and
>>
>>
>> > If we resubmit, will we be engaged or simply ignored, as before?
>>
>> I didn't see any public response to these questions. I am not a member of
>> the OSI board, but I am the creator of the Open Source Definition. As a
>> member of the license review committee (admission being equivalent to being
>> granted a subscription to this mailing list) I would be willing to look at
>> a new submission and make a recommendation.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the missing piece in your previous submissions is that they were
>> not a good deal for the Open Source developer community, only a license
>> engineered to grant maximal protection to NASA. The board cited legal
>> ambiguities in their response, these are of course to the disadvantage of
>> the community. Individual developers do not have the easy access to counsel
>> and the legal budget that NASA has, and it's an even worse day for *them
>> *when they are sued. To give a personal example, my recent participation
>> in an Open-source-related lawsuit will probably exceed my year's income in
>> legal fees. So, I believe that both NASA and OSI should place the
>> individual developer's protection before that of NASA if we are all to
>> pursue Open Source fairly.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, the language in 1.3 that prevents combination of Open Source
>> that is not an original work of authorship of the contributor seems to me
>> to be inimical to the concept of Open Source. I would not have recommended
>> its approval. I would be especially interested in seeing a submission that
>> removed that language.
>>
>>
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>     Bruce
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180220/7944afb4/attachment-0001.html>