The argument that the NASA lawyer wasn’t participating is particularly annoying since he WAS participating until Fontana decided to sit on the license for years AFTER the prior list moderator had sent a recommendation from the list for the board to approve.
The “discussion” scattered across YEARS went along the lines where the NASA lawyer would say “we need that for this reason” and the response was “nuh uh, no you don’t” or “I will send my objections” with no actual objections for months until he finally went away. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of NOSA 3.0 it is ridiculous to argue that NASA didn’t put in a good faith effort to answer questions or engage. That it failed to pass in a closed door board meeting because a couple board members didn’t like it is unremarkable since there would be no advocates to refute their negative assertions and many of the original list participants that had voted for approval were gone. The approval process isn’t “open” at all and the “public discussion” feels like window dressing. We had a public discussion. We had list consensus. We even had a recommendation to the board publicly posted to the list. 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. The whole thing was a farce and there was never any accountability or acknowledgement from the OSI something completely unfair had happened. I’m sure I’m going to be accused of “relitigating a dead issue” but so long as the OSI doesn’t “decertify” NOSA 2.0 I don’t care anymore. Do whatever you want but don’t blame NASA if they never engage again. > On Feb 28, 2020, at 3:40 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via > License-discuss <license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > > >> >>>>> [There also were some concerns about non-reciprocity, IIRC, to which the >>>>> response was the same as above] >> >>>> THAT would be a serious concern! I don't recall there being such a >>>> problem, can you find it in the archives? If it does exist, then it >> needs to be addressed. >> >> Here's an example of that discussion, although the history on the NOSA >> license(s) is so long and so scattered it's hard to figure out if these >> concerns (or any others) we rectified: >> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017- >> January/002931.html >> > > Hmmm... OK, I remember that a NOSA 3.0 was being drafted at one time, and I > know it got put up on the list. Does anyone want me to go poke at the NASA > lawyers to see if they'll push on NOSA 3.0 again? Alternatively, does anyone > want to push on Congress to do something about copyright law so that the US > Government can use the standard, already approved licenses? > > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > --- > Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the > views expressed herein are not intended to be used as an authoritative state > of the law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, > Department of Defense or U.S. Government. > > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
