Slashdot Mirror
NASA Open Source License Still Up For Discussion
Russ Nelson writes "There's been plenty of heated discussion about the NASA Open Source License, but although the OSI board approved five licenses and sent back seven, the NASA License is still up in the air, so to speak, hehe."
Just use the GPL nasa. It works for you and me!
Get paid to read spam
I have written several apps that use it. I honestly think it's the best or at least second best (behind the BSD license).
Use the GPL -- it's there, it's already done, and it saves our money as taxpayers.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
is alot better than being spread all over Texas!
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
I wish they'd approve the NASA license...open-source spacecraft, woohoo!
Up in the air eh?
Wanna take bets on whether or not it'll get.. shot down?
If that's like supporting the CowboyNeal, I'm all for it. The man needs all the support he can get.
just throw everything into public domain, so they can spend their energy where it's really needed? Like getting the shuttle flying again?
What?
It never left the ground. The illusion of it going up in the air was created to make us believe in it; it's a powerful myth of course, but it's all a hoax, unfortunately.
the NASA License is still up in the air, so to speak
You might say the expectations of the OSI are sky high.
Yes, or perhaps NASA has it's mind in space when it comes to this.
Ooh, ooh, or the Open Source Community needs to come back to earth.
" the NASA License is still up in the air, so to speak, hehe."
I read that, and immediately knew I was on Slashdot.
"Derp de derp."
Why not put all software funded with public monies into the public domain so that both private enterprise (Closed source projects) and open source projects can benefit from it equally? I don't understand why publicly funded software should be "forced" to participate in the "viral" nature of the GPL? Am I missing something here or is this not a legitimate objection?
Yeah, why not throw all the money at a 100 ton turkey.
The shuttle, despite having fully completed its cold-war requirements is possibly one of the least practical / cost effective methods of LEO operations.
Its time for something new, cast aside sentimentality and get cracking with space-exploration.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
SCO has filed a lawsuit against NASA, claiming that they are infringing on SCO intellectual property. McBride has been quoted as saying "It is clear that we own the IP on Physics(TM) and thus claim control over any and all its derrivative works." Those include Ballistics, Quantum Mechanics (chemistry as a derrivative work), and overpriced Duct Tape.
As for the NASA License? Why not use the Jeneral Public License? (JPL) Wouldn't matter, SCO Ownzors it all.
sigh. link points to goatse.cx
but or although?
Or is it "up in the air" he he.
Moron
Just the fact that a government agency is willing to release code which they have created is a very postive sign. It is expected that it would be impossible to apply something such as the GPL to code maintained by a public funded entity. But even with a license more restrictive than the GPL releasing this code will obviously do much more good than harm to the open source community.
I say kudos to them all
More importantly, if it doesn't fit one, it does identify a need for another license, and they could work with creative commons to create a new license that fits that need that everyone can use.
NASA legal counsel requires that all NASA releases of software include indemnification of the U.S. Government from any third party liability arising from use or distribution of the software. See 4.B.
This is just an example, and the reason why they can't release as PD.
Whe shouldn't be complaining about the amount of energy (and money) being used on devising yet another license, but be glad that a large institution like NASA is willing to do everything it can to be OSI compatible when it releases its source code.
Even if this process will slow down the release, use tax payer money on lawyers etc, this is a one time cost, at least if done properly. Hopefully it will function as an example to other government instances and maybe those instances will be able to release their source code under that license once it's ready.
My personal hope is that we will gain a new accepted license to last beside the MIT, BSD, Apache, GPL and LGPL licenses that all government instances are free to use (government source license?) as it will be accepted by nasas lawyers.
The only thing I fear that people will see this GPL compatibility as a waste of time and money, and release it under some falf assed license that will only cause problems and incompatabilities (Sun's license, XFree's proposed license, old apache license etc etc).
Now quit whining about how they should just release it under public domain, and be grateful that they are wasting your money on something that may benefit you directly.
Ahem. Commonweal is an archaic term meaning the common welfare. (Think weal as in Weal and Woe.)
I alway thought that any works done by the governemnt was considered public domain?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Too bad the Hubble isn't...
What?
It's okay, Vallon. You'll get your karma bonus again. The people here are just too fucking dumb and don't deserve better. Wish you all the best, you annoying troll.
Ever considered a career in sales or consulting? You can pretend that you know what you're talking about there all day and even get paid for it! And your audience will consist largely of the same kind of idiots as here.
I agree. He invented it and placed in /home/user/goatse.cx and watches it randomly and then blames other people.
I still think it was supposed to be "commonwealth" but the "th" got cut off.....
Fellowship 9/11
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
That was worse than goatse.cx
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
We need a comprehensive master list of licenses (I know lists of them exist - we need a master list) and what their provisions are.
A good idea would be a matrix that shows the licenses as rows and the provisions as columns.
That would make it a lot easier to choose a license or utilize a licensed product in a legal way.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Since this is the continuation of a previous
article, and NASA's already said that the GPL
(nor other current licenses are adequate)
It's very redundant to suggest they use the GPL.
It's offtopic to criticize the moderation system
in an article about software licenses.
And it's a troll to say that the moderator
is wrong, when clear as day they are right, it IS
redundant.
Ever notice the "beat the rush and see it early" link at the top of slashdot when a new story is about to come out of the closet?
Sounds good, doesn't it? To be able to view the pages linked to in the article before the tens of thousands of other slashbots click to view them while jerking off to tentacle porn anime.
Did it ever occur to you that you're taking part in cyber-terrorism?
That's right: Slashdot's editors are cyber-terrorists. They coordinate a DOS against small websites, and they attempt to collect moeny from people who wish to be spared the effects of said DOS. Terrorism, plain and simple.
You can fight this and other crimes by slashdot's editors by joining anti-slash. Anti-slash is committed to forcing the editors to own up to their numerous crimes against the geek community. Until our demands are met, we will relentlessly discredit them as a news service through trolling and other means.
conservatives, not liberals.
idiot.
If the article on slashdot linked to that discussion, then yes.
Someone may not have seen all the comments either, that doesn't mean it's not redundant.
Redundant means it's information that's already been posted, either because it was included in the links FROM THE ARTICLE.
Or in the article text
OR in comment text
Threads about moderation on an article about NASA are OFFTOPIC, and it is irrelevant that moderation occurs in every story.It would be just as much offtopic to comment about the ads appearing, though they also appear on every story.
It is the function of META-MODERATION to decide the fairness of moderations, discussions in the story don't decide it.
Moreover, it is still trolling to call moderators stupid, or to claim they don't know what redundant means.
There is no open source licence. These GPL boffins would have you believe that in America they give away software for free. But it is all lies! I triple gauruntee that there is no free nasa software, allah be praised. The United States has said that they are approaching the free software front cautiously, but when they besige us, we will surround them it will be them who will be beseiged, allah willing. We will sell them our proprietary space software for only 299 dinar and a shoe.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Not this year.
or that the politicians are public servents in that they work for us
or that the cops work for you! try telling them of that. it never works on COPS
sorry, it's a saturday night and i'm home sick.
i agree with you in principle, but i only see it being a blanket rule with some sort of time delay (making the code somewhat outdated). i would think it would make the government use only open source software
at least NASA is trying some sort of open source type thing. it's more than exists now, and if it works out for the greater good of all it will only help the cause.
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Sounds like a lwyers picnic to me.
-- Exposing the hype of Gentoo zealots. Modded into the ground to suppress opinion.
The Wilhelm Svenselius Open Source License
Public Security Interrest[sic]
Open Test License
I might sound ignorant, but I had no idea there were so many different kinds of liceneses to choose from. Is the GPL that mistrusted that we have to create all these other ones?
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
There is no discrimination clauses in the GPL.
For example, Microsoft are selling GPL'ed software, as is their right. Even if they think it is a cancer.
An open source license of any type will be a huge step forward. I'm part of a team that recently received NASA software in support of an open source aviation safety project. The current license will let us learn from the NASA work, and the engineers at Goddard & Langley are very supportive of getting it out to the public. However, we are stuck with the same license that is used for contracted work related to national security. As a result, we cannot actually use a single line of NASA code in our application. The killer clause in the license they used with us:
"The SOFTWARE is intended for domestic use only and shall not be made available to anyone outside of the United States. In addition, within the United States, the software shall not be made available to foreign nationals. Furthermore, the SOFTWARE shall not be provided to any person or entity listed on any "denied parties/persons" list (including the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons; Office of Foreign Assets Control, Changes to List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons; Office of Defense Trade Controls, List of Debarred Parties; Bureau of Export Administration, List of Denied Persons; Bureau of Export Administration, Entity List). UNDERSIGNED certifies that he/she is a U.S. person (as defined by 22 CFR _120.15) and is not listed on any of the aforementioned lists."
Those companies are taxpayers also, why shouldn't they be able to use it?