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."
Because then closed source companies would not be able to use the code, and they helped pay for it.
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
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.
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].
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
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
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".)