There are regulatory and agency compliance requirements and the issue of public 
domain code for GOSS.  This has been documented and discussed in the years long 
NOSA saga and in the ARL threads on license-discuss and license-review.

It doesn’t “need” to be accorded any special treatment or consideration if you 
don’t want GOSS releases.  Some of us do and this is why the special purpose 
license category exists.  NOSA, ECL and other licenses are in that category to 
meet the specific (aka special) needs of sub-groups within the larger OSS 
community.   In the past the OSI did provide special consideration for these 
groups because it understood that different parts of the community faced 
different challenges and it wasn’t “one size fits all” so take it or leave it.

So, again, I like Larry’s suggestion that the granting agency’s logo be 
prominently displayed when you show your own logo is a suitable requirement in 
this scenario that still meets the OSD.

Government funded software is not required to be released as Open Source so 
being able to point to something and say “This provides public visibility of 
what we do and generates goodwill for our agency” helps to justify jumping 
through the extra hoops of public release because there is additional cost 
involved.  It is very easy for a program to say “our agency already meets the 
mandated 20% OMB goal so I don’t want to pay for the cost of a public release 
review”.

Reducing the friction to open sourcing software really helps those of us that 
benefit from the availability of GOSS.  We want to help them out as much as 
possible.

Speaking for myself,

Nigel



On 12/5/18, 8:44 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Jim Jagielski" 
<license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org>
 on behalf of j...@jagunet.com<mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote:

I am not exactly sure how the wants, needs, and desires of GOSS are different 
from the entire FOSS community in general... or why it should be accorded 
"special" treatment or consideration.

Just my 2c



_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

Reply via email to