Subject: Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
From: Ben Reser <>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:08:26 -0800

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:00:47PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Ben Reser wrote:
> [...]
> > But seriously I don't think there is an OSI certified license
> > that includes an indemnification clause. 
> Hmm. IPL/CPL section 4?

I guess that is an indemnification clause.  But it's also pretty much
the same as 3H in NOSA which I don't think anyone has really objected
to.  Though the IPL and CPL do go farther than the NOSA 3H clause.

I'm more comfortable with 3H, and the IPL/CPL section 4 than I am with
the general waiver, indemnification clause.  I can accept that if I'm
going to make a commercial product I need to accept some liability, but
I'm not fond of the idea of being in the position of indemnifying the US
Government by simplying downloading and using their software.

However, while I'm not fond of it, I don't think it rises to the level
of OSD rejection.  This is most certainly not the only license that is
approved that has cluases I don't really care for... 

Ben Reser <>

"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
license-discuss archive is at