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."
Excerpted from NASA's license:
The reason that they don't what to use the GPL is because they want every recipient to register with NASA that they have recieved the software. A more onerous condition I have trouble imagining and I sincerely hope that this license is never blessed as an open source license[though it is a step in the right direction].
It would appear that there are NASA/US Government policies and statutes that are incompatible with the GPL as described here ...
http://news.osdir.com/article448.html
Needless to say, it is easier for NASA to simply propose a license that takes these into account then it would be for NASA to change policy and law so that they can use the GPL.
]{
The NASA submission explains why the GPL and other existing licenses do not meet their needs.
They list five reasons:
1. 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.
2. Federal Statute mandates that the U.S. Government can only be held subject to United States federal law.
3. NASA policy requires an effort to accurately track usage of released software for documentation and benefits realized?purposes.
4. Federal Statutes and NASA regulations requires a prohibition in NASA contracts against representations by others that may be deemed to be an endorsement by NASA.
5. Because it is important that each of the aforementioned clauses be a part of each open source agreement relating to NASA released software, the proposed agreement must mandate that distribution and redistribution of the software be done under the aegis of NOSA (mandatory domination similar to GPL).
Is item 3 the sticking point? The license text says:
F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following website: . Recipient's name and personal information shall be used for statistical purposes only. Once a Recipient makes a Modification available, it is requested that the Recipient inform NASA at the web site provided above how to access the Modification.
SYS 49152
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/105.html
Sec. 105. - Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise
Not so. Here is the relevant language from the proposed license.
The key phrase in the language is "is requested to".
NASA is, among other things, a government agency. They do understand legalese. Had they intended to state a requirement, that phrase would have been the single word "shall".
"Shall" is a term of art in government specifications and legalese. It is used to state a requirement, and for no other purpose. (The standard tactic in defense firms for finding actual requirements in specifications is to do a text search for "shall".)
It already is. An often overlooked feature of the U.S. copyright code is that works produced by U.S. government (including works for hire) are not eligible for copyright protection. Since copyleft is a form of copyright, no license is appropriate.
If you read the license, they point out that this copyright license is for everyone not subject to US law. For the latter group of people, the software is indeed in the public domain.
-russ
p.s. modulo the details, of course.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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.
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."