Subject: Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
From: Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:43:35 -0500 (EST)

(just to the list)

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote:

> Note the wording "requires an effort to accurately track".  It is the
> effort, not the tracking, that is mandatory, and indeed the draft NOSA
> "requests" rather than "requires" users to register with NASA.

  Does this really belong in the license agreement where the question of
why a "requests" is in there at all?  This seems like it should be in the
user documentation and is outside the context of the license agreement.  
With it in the license agreement people may simply not use the software at 
all if they do not wish to register and don't want to consult a lawyer 
about the legality of that.

  With this clause in there it seems vague whether it is Open Source or
not.  Beyond the legal issues I think it will be harmful to the goals of
NASA in releasing software to have this in the license.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Perspective of a digital copyright reformer on Sheila Copps, MP.
 http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/copps-ndp.html
 Discuss at: http://www.lulu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2757

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3