NOSA 3.0 was a NASA effort to address the complaints of 2.0. It wasn’t submitted, just worked on. I’m sorry about causing confusion.
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 law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Government. > On Feb 28, 2020, at 6:02 PM, McCoy Smith <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote: > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained > within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. > > > > > > ---- > >>> From: Nigel T <nigel.2...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 2:20 PM >>> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>> Cc: mc...@lexpan.law; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) >>> <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> >>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage >>> governments from bespoke licenses? > >>> 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. > > Looks like you're referring to Bryan Guerts (a NASA lawyer), who submitted > NOSA 2.0 (not 3.0) on June 13, 2013: > Caution-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: > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-January/002933.html > >>> 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. > > Do you mean NOSA 2.0? That seems to be the one of contention, and I don't > think I've ever seen a 3.0 submitted. > >>> 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 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: > Caution-https://opensource.org/minutes20170111 . > >>> 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. > > NASA 1.3 you mean? That's the OSI-approved one: > Caution-https://opensource.org/licenses/NASA-1.3 > > _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
