I think the NASA Open Source Agreement is worthy of OSI's approval - - with revision, but it also raises issues worthy of discussion and, perhaps, adjustment to the OSD since the internationalization of intellectual property law will likely raise similar open source licensing issues for other governments.
Regarding the issue concerning whether NASA may license software it cannot copyright in the U.S., the answer is yes, notwithstanding that significant harm to the conception of public domain for digital works is likely to follow. More generally, there may be good reason to add an article to the OSD regarding government open source licensing. Since it might be prudent to encourage open source licensing by governments for a number of reasons, OSI may want to consider under what conditions that this may be done. For instance, government bodies could be permitted/required to add a clause to the license safeguarding public domain rights where applicable. Further, it may be worth noting that government agencies like NASA could be encouraged to seek out open source developers when developing software rather than outsource development strictly to non-open source developers, which means the software is neither public domain (a government contractor may assert copyright), nor open source. With regard to the NASA license, I have three points. [1] The license contains an ambitious definition of "display" under section 1, which, effectively, imposes a restriction on the use of the software that I doubt is consistent with the spirit of a number of articles of the OSD. This definition may need revision to be more consistent with traditional Copyright law conceptions of display of a computer program. The user registration requirement/request line at the beginning of the license seems unclear as to purpose and, therefore, it is difficult to determine whether it is in compliance with article 7 of the OSD. Why is the government collecting user names, and is this part of the license intended to reach those licensees/sublicensees receiving the work as part of a redistribution? I do not view section 3.F of the license as answering my question since it is not clear why tracking registrations is needed either. [2] Regarding section 3.J, in all fairness, open source licenses used to distribute online software initially created by the U.S. government ought to carry a provision clearly indicating whether the export license from the Commerce department has been obtained and/or whether such a license is required. Notably, NASA IS ostensibly exporting the software since the open source license is not necessary, if the program is distributed within the United States or to U.S. citizens. Section 3.J should be revised. [3] Section 5.F should also be posted on NASA's website since the designated representative listed on any particular license in the hands of a licensee is likely to be outdated long before the license terminates. - Rod Rod Dixon Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org : -- : : There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright : software at all. The license itself says that no copyright is claimed : in the United States. : : The only serious concern that I can see is that the license requires : the recipient to indemnify the Government of the United States against : third party lawsuits. : : Title: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1 : Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7698:200402:jfdgbalgdhgblndpmljm : License: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.1.txt : Comments: ongoing as of this writing. : Recommend: more discussion. : : -- : --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python : Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like : 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar. : Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Sweet! : -- : license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
