Subject: Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
Date: 12 Feb 2004 23:42:10 -0500

Richard Schilling <rschi@rsmba.biz> writes:

> > Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting
> > requirements are viewed as unreasonable limitations on the rights of
> > licensees to do anything they want internally with open source
> 
> Biggest problem of all here - who in all of creation has the authority
> on blessing open source licenses?

Huh?  The point of this mailing list is to advise OSI on blessing open
source licenses.  You don't have to believe that OSI's blessing has
any value.  But there isn't much point to joining this mailing list if
you reject the whole concept of OSI blessing a license.

> I maintain that an open source license has certain characteristics and
> achieves some well defined goals - the primary one being quick, open
> distribution or source code and documentation to the end user without
> charging a license fee.  It is entirely unappropriate to specify what
> belongs and doesn't belong in an open source license.  Either the
> license achieves it's own goals or it doesn't.

OSI will only bless licenses that meet the Open Source Definition:
    http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Lawrence is correctly saying that if the NASA license requires
tracking of released software, that license does not conform to the
OSD, and therefore the OSI should not bless it.

That would not mean that the license is a bad license.  It would
merely mean that software released under the license is not OSI
Certified Open Source Software.

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