Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Open Source License Still Up For Discussion

Posted by timothy on from the tax-dollars-want-to-benefit-the-commonweal dept.

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."

22 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Why not use the GPL? by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Why not use the GPL? by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because then closed source companies would not be able to use the code, and they helped pay for it.

    2. Re:Why not use the GPL? by CeleronXL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're not simply going to reinvent the GPL, they need something different. The GPL doesn't cater to their needs well enough, so they had to write their own. Nothing strange about that.

    3. Re:Why not use the GPL? by Pretzalzz · · Score: 5, Informative
      Because then closed source companies would not be able to use the code, and they helped pay for it.

      Excerpted from NASA's license:
      3. OBLIGATIONS OF RECIPIENT
      [snip]
      2. If Recipient distributes or redistributes the Subject Software in any form other than source code, Recipient must also make the source code freely available, and must provide with each copy of the Subject Software information on how to obtain the source code in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange.


      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].
    4. Re:Why not use the GPL? by turtledawn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the excerpt you included in your comment does not demonstrate that this is the case at all. Did you perhaps snip the wrong piece of text? No, I have not read the license in question, but please, if there is such a clause, post it. Thanks!
      -turtledawn

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    5. Re:Why not use the GPL? by mmusson · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    6. Re:Why not use the GPL? by lcorc79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All this is saying is that if you distribute a binary (for example), you must make the source available and provide information on how to obtain it. This is no different than any other open source license. 'In a reasonable manner' / 'medium customarily used for software exchange' just means on a disk / CD, FTP server, etc. It's not saying you have to register with NASA to get the source (or the software) at all.

      --
      Groove Salad -- a nicely chilled plate of ambient grooves and beats.
    7. Re:Why not use the GPL? by john.r.strohm · · Score: 5, Informative
      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].

      Not so. Here is the relevant language from the proposed license.


      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.

      [Alternative paragraph for use when a web site for release and
      monitoring of subject software will not be supported by releasing
      project or Center] 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 provide NASA, by e-mail to the NASA
      Point of Contact listed in clause 5.F., the following information:
      ______________________________. 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, by e-mail to the NASA Point of Contact listed
      in clause 5.F., how to access the Modification.


      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".)
  2. hmm by AgentAce · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wish they'd approve the NASA license...open-source spacecraft, woohoo!

  3. It's not up in the air by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  4. Public Domain! by DoninIN · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Public Domain! by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
  5. The price of freedom -- $699 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  6. I think its still a good idea by HenryFjord · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  7. They could work with Creative Commons. by ron_ivi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I hope they take a look at what rights they want to protect, and if it fits one of the existing Creative Commons licenses, use it.

    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.

  8. More licenses... by koody · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Now we are going to hear a whole bunch of silly comments like "Just release it to public domain" and "why not gpl". If you would have RTFAs you'd know that nasa has some internal requirements for anything it releases such as
    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.

  9. Public Domain by Bull999999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Public Domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

  10. Re:Can't they by segment · · Score: 3, Interesting
    They're caught up with too many pork barrel projects to focus solely on the shuttle. Mission to Mars, GTE.
    What if the National Science Foundation got to directly and substantially compete with NASA, though? (As other examples there are also the Department of Defense (such as the Air Force or DARPA); the FAAs AST; and the NIH, etcetera.) The National Science Foundation has no research facilities of its own, and it conditions grant-awards on successful completion of a peer review process involving experts from academia, industry and the government. If the National Science Foundation (for example) got more funding allocated for its space endeavors along with the authorization to directly compete against NASA, it could utilize NASA centers as long as doing so withstands peer review scrutiny. This could boost NASA's public image, as people would be more likely to believe that whatever remains of NASA is not merely a product of executive or legislative pork-barreling, stacked evaluation boards, and bureaucratic inertia.

    NASA's $13.6 billion annual budget dwarfs the $170 million budget for the National Science Foundation's space-related projects (which are presently focused merely on ground-based astronomy). The NSF therefore has to reject close to 75% of the space-related research proposals it receives. The Congressional Appropriations subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies decides how much money it will allocate to both NASA and the National Science Foundation. Why not boost the NSF's space budget and, more significantly, broaden the scope of space activities for which future NSF money is earmarked? The NSF could already compete regarding funding nanotechnology research, space plasma investigations (related to nuclear fusion, for example), and microgravity studies. Does it really make sense to maintain the presently large budget discrepancy? source)

    Don't be fooled by a wolf in sheeps clothing. Rather crackedout Buzz Lightyear in a NASA digital editing room.
    --
    MoFscker
  11. Two Words: Public Domain by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Any unclassified intellectual property produced with taxpayer money should automatically be in the public domain, period, end of story. If a contractor puts patented code into a publicly-funded project, they are automatically granting the public a perpetual license to use that patent. Yes, this means they are granting a license to their competitors, but they are also getting back permission to use their competitors' patents. Since all the citizens paid for it, it belongs to all the citizens equally.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    1. Re:Two Words: Public Domain by ortholattice · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Good luck getting contractors to write code for the gov't then...

      These days I think they'll have a lot of luck getting contractors to write code for the gov't. Besides, why is it any different from any other work for hire?

      And as an employee of said contractor, who wouldn't have any copyright interest in whatever I produce anyway, I think I might be more motivated to produce better work if I knew it would ultimately be subject to public scrutiny and benefit the public good. Compare that to dedicating your life to writing code that will be secreted away in some closed-source product with no acknowledgement whatsoever to you other than a paycheck that lets you survive. The thought of such a dismal and pointless existence is kind of depressing.

  12. what is this utopia you hail from? by johnpaul191 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    that's like saying the public owns the airwaves (see other FCC story from today)

    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 .... and i just don't see that happening here too soon.

    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.