Re: NASA Open Source Agreement
Thanks for the input everyone. > Have you let the OSI know? its possible someone made a mistake, or they > may simply disagree with the FSF on this matter. Karl - I haven't contacted the OSI directly about this. I only posted my question to the OSI License Discuss list. For now, I'm just trying to get a handle on what the community thinks of the NOSA, and what they would do differently. Thanks, Jeremy On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Paul Wise [110429 03:16]: >> Secondly, I was under the impression that all US Government works are >> supposed to be public domain, under what circumstances is this license >> used? > > It's only public domain within the USA. Everywhere else you might need > a license depending on the local legislation[1]. > > The same situation like if some author is dead long enough for one > legislation but not long enough for another, then the work can > be public domain in some parts of the world and not public domain > in other parts of the world. > > Bernhard R. Link > > [1] Berne has recipocity. But a possible implementation is "if you > give our authors the same rights as your authors, we give your > authors the same rights as our authors". > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: > http://lists.debian.org/20110429084245.gb23...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktim5thudx-cpx766ldzwumyp1ic...@mail.gmail.com
Re: NASA Open Source Agreement
* Paul Wise [110429 03:16]: > Secondly, I was under the impression that all US Government works are > supposed to be public domain, under what circumstances is this license > used? It's only public domain within the USA. Everywhere else you might need a license depending on the local legislation[1]. The same situation like if some author is dead long enough for one legislation but not long enough for another, then the work can be public domain in some parts of the world and not public domain in other parts of the world. Bernhard R. Link [1] Berne has recipocity. But a possible implementation is "if you give our authors the same rights as your authors, we give your authors the same rights as our authors". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110429084245.gb23...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
Re: NASA Open Source Agreement
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:25:11 -0400 Jeremy Wright wrote: > I've asked the OSI license mailing list about this, and I wanted to > get the Debian take on it. I didn't see this discussion anywhere else > on this list already. Sorry if I missed it. > > The OSI has approved version 1.3 of the NASA Open Source Agreement > (NOSA), but the FSF has a problem with section 3, paragraph G of the > license. The issue that the FSF cites is as follows: > > "The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software > license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your > “original creation”. Free software development depends on combining > code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this." Have you let the OSI know? its possible someone made a mistake, or they may simply disagree with the FSF on this matter. thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: NASA Open Source Agreement
Paul Wise wrote: > Firstly, it would be much better if they used an existing, > well-understood free license rather than reinventing the legal > wheel. Indeed. I believe the French government standardized on CECILL, which can be trivially converted to GPL. > Secondly, I was under the impression that all US Government works are > supposed to be public domain, under what circumstances is this license > used? The US Government often acquires copyrighted code from contractors. There is actually some verbiage in this license about that (Section 3B). As for the license, the only troublesome section I found is the one mentioned (3G) G. Each Contributor represents that that its Modification is believed to be Contributor’s original creation and does not violate any existing agreements, regulations, statutes or rules, and further that Contributor has sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this Agreement. There is an interesting interaction with a different section 3I I. A Recipient may create a Larger Work by combining Subject Software with separate software not governed by the terms of this agreement and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such case, the Recipient must make sure Subject Software, or portions thereof, included in the Larger Work is subject to this Agreement. So if you combine things together, then it does not have to be an original creation. It seems that the only time that 3G comes into play is if you modify existing code. So if your friend makes a modification, you can not pass off that modification as your own. Essentially, copyright notices have to be correct. However, it is awfully confusing, and I am not certain that my analysis would be compelling in court. I worry a bit more about the words does not violate any existing agreements, regulations, statutes or rules which means that you can not do anything against the law. So dissidents in Cuba could not modify NOSA code to get around the censorship. I would think that the US Government would not want to give Cuba more tools for oppression. As for Debian, I do not remember what decision the Debian FTP masters made about these types of clauses. In any case, it would be a million times better for NASA to reuse an existing license. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu
Re: NASA Open Source Agreement
Firstly, it would be much better if they used an existing,
well-understood free license rather than reinventing the legal wheel.
Secondly, I was under the impression that all US Government works are
supposed to be public domain, under what circumstances is this license
used?
Third, I quote the full license below for the archives:
NASA OPEN SOURCE AGREEMENT VERSION 1.3
THIS OPEN SOURCE AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) DEFINES THE RIGHTS OF
USE, REPRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, MODIFICATION AND REDISTRIBUTION
OF CERTAIN COMPUTER SOFTWARE ORIGINALLY RELEASED BY THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT AS REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY
LISTED BELOW ("GOVERNMENT AGENCY"). THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, AS REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCY, IS AN
INTENDED THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF ALL SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTIONS
OR REDISTRIBUTIONS OF THE SUBJECT SOFTWARE. ANYONE WHO USES,
REPRODUCES, DISTRIBUTES, MODIFIES OR REDISTRIBUTES THE SUBJECT
SOFTWARE, AS DEFINED HEREIN, OR ANY PART THEREOF, IS, BY THAT
ACTION, ACCEPTING IN FULL THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS
CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT.
Government Agency: _
Government Agency Original Software Designation: __
Government Agency Original Software Title:
User Registration Requested. Please Visit http://__
Government Agency Point of Contact for Original Software: ___
1. DEFINITIONS
A. “Contributor” means Government Agency, as the developer of
the Original Software,
and any entity that makes a Modification.
B. “Covered Patents” mean patent claims licensable by a
Contributor that are necessarily
infringed by the use or sale of its Modification alone or when
combined with the Subject
Software.
C.“Display” means the showing of a copy of the Subject
Software, either directly or by
means of an image, or any other device.
D. “Distribution” means conveyance or transfer of the Subject
Software, regardless of
means, to another.
E.“Larger Work” means computer software that combines Subject
Software, or portions
thereof, with software separate from the Subject Software that is not
governed by the terms of
this Agreement.
F.“Modification” means any alteration of, including addition
to or deletion from, the
substance or structure of either the Original Software or Subject
Software, and includes
derivative works, as that term is defined in the Copyright Statute, 17
USC 101. However, the
act of including Subject Software as part of a Larger Work does not in
and of itself constitute a
Modification.
G. “Original Software” means the computer software first
released under this Agreement
by Government Agency with Government Agency designation __
and entitled
_, including source code,
object code
and accompanying documentation, if any.
H. “Recipient” means anyone who acquires the Subject Software
under this Agreement,
including all Contributors.
I. “Redistribution” means Distribution of the Subject Software
after a Modification has
been made.
J. “Reproduction” means the making of a counterpart, image or
copy of the Subject
Software.
K. “Sale” means the exchange of the Subject Software for money or
equivalent value.
L. “Subject Software” means the Original Software, Modifications,
or any respective parts
thereof.
M. “Use” means the application or employment of the Subject
Software for any purpose.
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
A. Under Non-Patent Rights: Subject to the terms and conditions
of this Agreement, each
Contributor, with respect to its own contribution to the Subject
Software, hereby grants to each
Recipient a non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free license to engage
in the following activities
pertaining to the Subject Software:
1. Use
2. Distribution
3. Reproduction
4. Modification
5. Redistribution
6. Display
B. Under Patent Rights: Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, each
Contributor, with respect to its own contribution to the Subject
Software, hereby grants to each
Recipient under Covered Patents a non-exclusive, world-wide,
royalty-free license to engage in
the following activities pertaining to the Subject Software:
1. Use
2. Distribution
3. Reproduction
4. Sale
5. Offer for Sale
C. The rights granted under Paragraph B. also apply to the
combination of a Contributor’s
Modification and the Subject Software if, at the time the Modification
is added by the
Contributor, the addition of such Modification causes the combination
to be covered by the
Covered Patents. It does not apply to any other combinations that
include a Modification.
D. The rights granted in Paragraphs A. and B. allow the Recipient
to sublicense those
same rights. Such sublicense must be under the same terms and
conditio
NASA Open Source Agreement
I've asked the OSI license mailing list about this, and I wanted to get the Debian take on it. I didn't see this discussion anywhere else on this list already. Sorry if I missed it. The OSI has approved version 1.3 of the NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA), but the FSF has a problem with section 3, paragraph G of the license. The issue that the FSF cites is as follows: "The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your “original creation”. Free software development depends on combining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this." Here's a link to the NOSA v1.3: http://opensource.gsfc.nasa.gov/documents/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.pdf I noticed that WorldWind (which was released under the NOSA) is in the non-free repository. It has also been explained to me that this could be because the WorldWind Java repositories are closed, and not necessarily because of the license. In general, it sounds like there is not a consensus on whether or not the NOSA is actually a free software license. I was wondering if the NOSA is indeed considered by the Debian community to be a non-free license, and if so what would need to be changed to get NOSA licensed software out of the non-free repositories. The discussion on the OSI list is here: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:17058:201104:kpokeidhhkjmdjmkjknd And notes on licensing issues from the 2011 NASA Open Source Summit are here: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1TagS_gwDhDfxjr7WpG78_aIcfoPO1tMXBPeCMEE3-Us&pli=1 What got me started researching this was an idea that was posted on NASA's IdeaScale page: http://opennasaplan.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Revise-NOSA-to-become-more-free/123641-7200 Any thoughts? Thanks, Jeremy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=pw6s-yxzgoyaju1tdmuhyhju...@mail.gmail.com
