On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:03 PM McCoy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looks like you're referring to Bryan Guerts (a NASA lawyer), who submitted > NOSA 2.0 (not 3.0) on June 13, 2013: > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2013-June/001944.html > As far as I can tell, there was sporadic discussion of that license -- which > included Bryan -- until it appears to have been rejected in January, 2017: > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-January/002933.html
NOSA 2.0 was not rejected as such -- the definitive statement by the OSI board was in November 2017: "Resolved, That, in view of the length, complexity, and ambiguities in the submitted drafts of the NASA Open Source Agreement version 2.0, it is the opinion of the OSI that the conformance of NOSA 2.0 to the OSD cannot be assured. OSI thus can neither approve nor reject the license, and NASA is invited to submit a new draft of NOSA for consideration by the OSI." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-November/003309.html Nigel wrote: > >>Then a board member said nah, I’m not even going to let it go for a vote. > >>I’m just going to sit on it for years until I can say the list recommends > >>not to approve because the only three people left talking about it is some > >>nobody, Richard and Bruce so the “majority” of the list is “against” and > >>the license submitter has stopped responding. Nigel, I am sorry you are still so angry about how NOSA 2.0 was dealt with. In retrospect I would have tried to convince the OSI board to reject the license outright early on. I would say that, until a year or so ago, the OSI board was reluctant to formally reject any submitted licenses, not as a matter of formal policy or anything, but rather as a kind of institutional custom, although earlier in OSI's history there were apparently a few outright rejections. That reluctance is possibly still evident in the recent disposition of the Vaccine License (see: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-January/004647.html), which is as rejection-worthy as any formally submitted license I've seen. It's also worth remembering that the OSI streamlined its license review process last year in large part because of the experience with the NOSA 2.0 submission. Also, I think Bruce Perens's comments on NOSA 2.0 only occurred after the board issued its "can neither approve nor reject" statement in November 2017. I got the sense that it was that board statement that alerted him to the license submission. (I'm not sure who you mean by "some nobody".) McCoy wrote: > The committee report in Jan 2017 doesn't list who voted, or what the vote was > (they now at least indicate the vote), so I'm not sure how you conclude this. > I don't see that Bruce Perens was involved in any of the discussions, nor > does it appear he was part of the vote in Jan 2017: > https://opensource.org/minutes20170111 . Bruce Perens, a co-founder of the OSI, hasn't been on the OSI board since *1999*. See: https://lwn.net/Articles/274354/. He has been sporadically active on license-discuss and license-review at various times over the years, including the past couple of years (until fairly recently). Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
