Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Software Space Your Rights Online

NASA Open Source License Still Up For Discussion 132

Posted by timothy from the tax-dollars-want-to-benefit-the-commonweal dept.
Russ Nelson writes "There's been plenty of heated discussion about the NASA Open Source License, but although the OSI board approved five licenses and sent back seven, the NASA License is still up in the air, so to speak, hehe."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Open Source License Still Up For Discussion More

NASA Open Source License Still Up For Discussion

Comments Filter:

  • GPL (Score:1, Redundant)

    by LinuxBSDNotSCO ( 738941 )
    Just use the GPL nasa. It works for you and me!
    • hmmm...trying to decide whether to agree or disagree...

  • Why not use the GPL? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Amsterdam Vallon ( 639622 ) * <amsterdamvallon2003@yahoo.com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:04PM (#8352451) Homepage
    I have written several apps that use it. I honestly think it's the best or at least second best (behind the BSD license).

    Use the GPL -- it's there, it's already done, and it saves our money as taxpayers.

    • Re:Why not use the GPL? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:10PM (#8352492) Journal
      Because then closed source companies would not be able to use the code, and they helped pay for it.
      • Ok... BSD license. Patent protection? CPL. Seriously, there are already enough licenses out there.

        • Two Words: Public Domain (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @08:09PM (#8352826)
          Any unclassified intellectual property produced with taxpayer money should automatically be in the public domain, period, end of story. If a contractor puts patented code into a publicly-funded project, they are automatically granting the public a perpetual license to use that patent. Yes, this means they are granting a license to their competitors, but they are also getting back permission to use their competitors' patents. Since all the citizens paid for it, it belongs to all the citizens equally.

          • Good luck getting contractors to write code for the gov't then...

            --RJ

            • Re:Two Words: Public Domain (Score:5, Insightful)

              by ortholattice ( 175065 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @10:46PM (#8353593)
              Good luck getting contractors to write code for the gov't then...

              These days I think they'll have a lot of luck getting contractors to write code for the gov't. Besides, why is it any different from any other work for hire?

              And as an employee of said contractor, who wouldn't have any copyright interest in whatever I produce anyway, I think I might be more motivated to produce better work if I knew it would ultimately be subject to public scrutiny and benefit the public good. Compare that to dedicating your life to writing code that will be secreted away in some closed-source product with no acknowledgement whatsoever to you other than a paycheck that lets you survive. The thought of such a dismal and pointless existence is kind of depressing.

          • It already is. An often overlooked feature of the U.S. copyright code is that works produced by U.S. government (including works for hire) are not eligible for copyright protection. Since copyleft is a form of copyright, no license is appropriate.

          • what is this utopia you hail from? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by johnpaul191 ( 240105 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @12:28AM (#8354046) Homepage
            that's like saying the public owns the airwaves (see other FCC story from today)

            or that the politicians are public servents in that they work for us

            or that the cops work for you! try telling them of that. it never works on COPS


            sorry, it's a saturday night and i'm home sick.

            i agree with you in principle, but i only see it being a blanket rule with some sort of time delay (making the code somewhat outdated). i would think it would make the government use only open source software .... and i just don't see that happening here too soon.

            at least NASA is trying some sort of open source type thing. it's more than exists now, and if it works out for the greater good of all it will only help the cause.

      • They could work with Creative Commons. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ron_ivi ( 607351 ) <sdotno@NOSpAM.cheapcomplexdevices.com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:29PM (#8352627)
        I hope they take a look at what rights they want to protect, and if it fits one of the existing Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] licenses, use it.

        More importantly, if it doesn't fit one, it does identify a need for another license, and they could work with creative commons to create a new license that fits that need that everyone can use.

      • technically, the tax payers paid for it.

      • Re:Why not use the GPL? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Pretzalzz ( 577309 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:45PM (#8352724)
        Because then closed source companies would not be able to use the code, and they helped pay for it.

        Excerpted from NASA's license:
        3. OBLIGATIONS OF RECIPIENT

        [snip]
        2. If Recipient distributes or redistributes the Subject Software in any form other than source code, Recipient must also make the source code freely available, and must provide with each copy of the Subject Software information on how to obtain the source code in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange.


        The reason that they don't what to use the GPL is because they want every recipient to register with NASA that they have recieved the software. A more onerous condition I have trouble imagining and I sincerely hope that this license is never blessed as an open source license[though it is a step in the right direction].
        • the excerpt you included in your comment does not demonstrate that this is the case at all. Did you perhaps snip the wrong piece of text? No, I have not read the license in question, but please, if there is such a clause, post it. Thanks!
          -turtledawn
          • Excerpt from the license I was refering to:

            F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following website: ______________________________. Recipient's name and personal information shall be used for statistical purposes only. Once a Recipient makes a Modification available, it is requested that the Recipient inform NASA at the web site provided above how to acc

            • Ah. Thank you; this is a little odd, though not especially different from clauses I've seen in some sorts of freeware/shareware licenses. If that's the only odd aspect to the license, you'd think they _would_ just use the GPL and tack on a little comment before or after the license text making the request. But i guess that being a GA (gov. agency) they have to reinvent the wheel every so often.

              Hmm, i wonder how clunky a NASA-developed wheel would be...
        • All this is saying is that if you distribute a binary (for example), you must make the source available and provide information on how to obtain it. This is no different than any other open source license. 'In a reasonable manner' / 'medium customarily used for software exchange' just means on a disk / CD, FTP server, etc. It's not saying you have to register with NASA to get the source (or the software) at all.

        • Re:Why not use the GPL? (Score:5, Informative)

          by john.r.strohm ( 586791 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @08:23PM (#8352908)
          The reason that they don't what to use the GPL is because they want every recipient to register with NASA that they have recieved the software. A more onerous condition I have trouble imagining and I sincerely hope that this license is never blessed as an open source license[though it is a step in the right direction].

          Not so. Here is the relevant language from the proposed license.


          F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the
          Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject
          Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following
          website: ______________________________. Recipient's name and
          personal information shall be used for statistical purposes only. Once
          a Recipient makes a Modification available, it is requested that the
          Recipient inform NASA at the web site provided above how to access the
          Modification.

          [Alternative paragraph for use when a web site for release and
          monitoring of subject software will not be supported by releasing
          project or Center] In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate
          records of the Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the
          Subject Software, is requested to provide NASA, by e-mail to the NASA
          Point of Contact listed in clause 5.F., the following information:
          ______________________________. Recipient's name and personal
          information shall be used for statistical purposes only. Once a
          Recipient makes a Modification available, it is requested that the
          Recipient inform NASA, by e-mail to the NASA Point of Contact listed
          in clause 5.F., how to access the Modification.


          The key phrase in the language is "is requested to".

          NASA is, among other things, a government agency. They do understand legalese. Had they intended to state a requirement, that phrase would have been the single word "shall".

          "Shall" is a term of art in government specifications and legalese. It is used to state a requirement, and for no other purpose. (The standard tactic in defense firms for finding actual requirements in specifications is to do a text search for "shall".)
          • ---
            Recipient's name and personal
            information shall be used for statistical purposes only.
            ---

            And how, exactly, would they use my name for "statistical purposes"?

            "NASA Reports 18% of all Hardcore Geeks Named Bob, Robert, or Similar Variant"
      • "Because then closed source companies would not be able to use the code"

        Yes they would, they just wouldn't be able to distribute binary versions.

      • Sure they would. The GPL doesn't stop them from using it, only from modifying it- and only then if they distribute, and even then only if they refuse to give their own source. If they don't want to use it, they're being obstinate.
        • Sure they would. The GPL doesn't stop them from using it, only from modifying it- and only then if they distribute, and even then only if they refuse to give their own source. If they don't want to use it, they're being obstinate.

          The grandparent post said "because closed source companies wouldn't be able to use it". Could you explain how a closed source company is able to make practical use out of the code in their software products which, to be redundant here, are closed source?
          • They can use it as a user. YOu mean they couldn't take it and put it in their closed source products, thereby taking stuff paid for with MY money and not giving me updates and improvements? Sorry if I couldn't give a fuck.
            • YOu mean they couldn't take it and put it in their closed source products, thereby taking stuff paid for with MY money and not giving me updates and improvements? Sorry if I couldn't give a fuck.

              So you're saying that they should be denied the use of something which they paid for with their money as well, simply because they don't share your particular dogma? And if they make any changes by investing more of their money, you are somehow entitled to reap the benefits of THEIR labor? I take it you don't li
            • Those companies are taxpayers also, why shouldn't they be able to use it?
              • They can use it. But since I also paid for it, why should they be able to take it without contributing back to me?
                • They do not take the code from you that you helped pay for as you can still get it from NASA. But why should the changes they make be public?
                  • Why should they be allowed to take code made by public money and make it closed source and unavailable to the public? If they want to do that, they can write their own work-alike.
                    • Because that public money you are talking about doesn't come from the toothfairy, it comes from the entire base of US taxpayers and companies pay taxes.

                      Or did you think Santa brought the goverment money for Christmas?
                    • Exactly my point. So why should a company be able to take code written with public money, which comes from a large number of sources and mainly NOT from closed source software companies, and use it without contributing changes back to the public? Simple answer- they shouldn't.
                • Because you aren't required to submit any contributions made with your time and money to those companies.
    • They're not simply going to reinvent the GPL, they need something different. The GPL doesn't cater to their needs well enough, so they had to write their own. Nothing strange about that.
    • It would appear that there are NASA/US Government policies and statutes that are incompatible with the GPL as described here ...

      http://news.osdir.com/article448.html

      Needless to say, it is easier for NASA to simply propose a license that takes these into account then it would be for NASA to change policy and law so that they can use the GPL.

      ]{

    • Re:Why not use the GPL? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mmusson ( 753678 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @08:00PM (#8352784)
      The NASA submission explains why the GPL and other existing licenses do not meet their needs.

      They list five reasons:

      1. NASA legal counsel requires that all NASA releases of software include indemnification of the U.S. Government from any third party liability arising from use or distribution of the software.

      2. Federal Statute mandates that the U.S. Government can only be held subject to United States federal law.

      3. NASA policy requires an effort to accurately track usage of released software for documentation and benefits realized?purposes.

      4. Federal Statutes and NASA regulations requires a prohibition in NASA contracts against representations by others that may be deemed to be an endorsement by NASA.

      5. Because it is important that each of the aforementioned clauses be a part of each open source agreement relating to NASA released software, the proposed agreement must mandate that distribution and redistribution of the software be done under the aegis of NOSA (mandatory domination similar to GPL).

      Is item 3 the sticking point? The license text says:

      F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following website: . Recipient's name and personal information shall be used for statistical purposes only. Once a Recipient makes a Modification available, it is requested that the Recipient inform NASA at the web site provided above how to access the Modification.
      • 1. NASA legal counsel requires that all NASA releases of software include indemnification of the U.S. Government from any third party liability arising from use or distribution of the software.
        NASA legal counsel is wrong, all software released by NASA is public domain anyway (pursuant to US code title 17 sec 105), and the GPL includes no-warranty/indemnification anyway.

        2. Federal Statute mandates that the U.S. Government can only be held subject to United States federal law.
        Last time I checked the copy
  • is alot better than being spread all over Texas!

  • hmm (Score:3, Funny)

    by AgentAce ( 246327 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:06PM (#8352464)
    I wish they'd approve the NASA license...open-source spacecraft, woohoo!

  • Can't they (Score:2, Insightful)

    by iminplaya ( 723125 )
    just throw everything into public domain, so they can spend their energy where it's really needed? Like getting the shuttle flying again?
    • Yeah, why not throw all the money at a 100 ton turkey.

      The shuttle, despite having fully completed its cold-war requirements is possibly one of the least practical / cost effective methods of LEO operations.

      Its time for something new, cast aside sentimentality and get cracking with space-exploration.
      • I agree, but even the shuttle is more important than IP. Like the software biz, the lawyers are getting more action than the techs.(in more ways than one...heh.)
        • I wholeheartedly agree with you. IP is a pointless waste of money and as America is my best hope for manned exploration of space, I worry when their space program becomes embroiled in beaurocracy.

    • Re:Can't they (Score:4, Interesting)

      by segment ( 695309 ) <sil@poli[ ]x.org ['tri' in gap]> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:44PM (#8352717) Homepage Journal
      They're caught up with too many pork barrel projects to focus solely on the shuttle. Mission to Mars [govexec.com], GTE [nasa.gov].
      What if the National Science Foundation got to directly and substantially compete with NASA, though? (As other examples there are also the Department of Defense (such as the Air Force or DARPA); the FAAs AST; and the NIH, etcetera.) The National Science Foundation has no research facilities of its own, and it conditions grant-awards on successful completion of a peer review process involving experts from academia, industry and the government. If the National Science Foundation (for example) got more funding allocated for its space endeavors along with the authorization to directly compete against NASA, it could utilize NASA centers as long as doing so withstands peer review scrutiny. This could boost NASA's public image, as people would be more likely to believe that whatever remains of NASA is not merely a product of executive or legislative pork-barreling, stacked evaluation boards, and bureaucratic inertia.

      NASA's $13.6 billion annual budget dwarfs the $170 million budget for the National Science Foundation's space-related projects (which are presently focused merely on ground-based astronomy). The NSF therefore has to reject close to 75% of the space-related research proposals it receives. The Congressional Appropriations subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies decides how much money it will allocate to both NASA and the National Science Foundation. Why not boost the NSF's space budget and, more significantly, broaden the scope of space activities for which future NSF money is earmarked? The NSF could already compete regarding funding nanotechnology research, space plasma investigations (related to nuclear fusion, for example), and microgravity studies. Does it really make sense to maintain the presently large budget discrepancy? source [spaceprojects.com])

      Don't be fooled by a wolf in sheeps clothing. Rather crackedout Buzz Lightyear in a NASA digital editing room.
      • They're caught up with too many pork barrel projects to focus solely on the shuttle.

        But even the worst pork barrel project gives us something tangible. Pretty pictures, big numbers, whatever. All this IP garbage just feeds the lawyers to the benefit of nobody...except the lawyers of course.
        • not necessarily true. Sure lawyers may be the scum of the earth in some eyes, but without them who do you think would have your back if you were seriously injured, if your family fell ill to something. Do you think big bro would sympathetically pay your hospital bills, etc.?. So love em or hate em, lawyers serve as an equalizer to some degree.

  • It's not up in the air (Score:5, Funny)

    by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:10PM (#8352497)
    It never left the ground. The illusion of it going up in the air was created to make us believe in it; it's a powerful myth of course, but it's all a hoax, unfortunately.

  • Puns (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    the NASA License is still up in the air, so to speak

    You might say the expectations of the OSI are sky high.

    Yes, or perhaps NASA has it's mind in space when it comes to this.

    Ooh, ooh, or the Open Source Community needs to come back to earth.

  • Heh (Score:1, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 )
    " the NASA License is still up in the air, so to speak, hehe."

    I read that, and immediately knew I was on Slashdot.

  • Public Domain! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DoninIN ( 115418 ) <don.middendorf@gmail.com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:14PM (#8352533) Homepage
    Why not put all software funded with public monies into the public domain so that both private enterprise (Closed source projects) and open source projects can benefit from it equally? I don't understand why publicly funded software should be "forced" to participate in the "viral" nature of the GPL? Am I missing something here or is this not a legitimate objection?

    • Re:Public Domain! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TyrranzzX ( 617713 )
      Refering to the GPL as viral is just plain greedy. GPL has a snowballing effect; if you use it, the cost of using it is releasing your work for free. Now, if you've got a router and you're going to spend 12 months desiging an IOS when 3 months of developmenet on linux will do, you've got to balance that.

      What nasa has is public domain, which is different. You can take a piece of public domain and do anything you want with it but tell someone else what they can do with it.

      Personally, I think the GPL
      • "but you've got to release the software at no cost or you can sell the software at cost of distribution. "

        You sure about that? I thought you could demand any price you want for the software - but you have to provide the source for free. And you only have to offer free source to the same people that you sell the software to. But since those people can turn around and give the software and/or source to anyone they want, it makes it hard to actually sell the software at a high price. That's my understand

    • Re:Public Domain! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @12:04AM (#8353955) Homepage
      If you read the license, they point out that this copyright license is for everyone not subject to US law. For the latter group of people, the software is indeed in the public domain.
      -russ
      p.s. modulo the details, of course.
    • There is no discrimination clauses in the GPL.
      For example, Microsoft are selling GPL'ed software [microsoft.com], as is their right. Even if they think it is a cancer.

  • The price of freedom -- $699 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:17PM (#8352553)
    SCO has filed a lawsuit against NASA, claiming that they are infringing on SCO intellectual property. McBride has been quoted as saying "It is clear that we own the IP on Physics(TM) and thus claim control over any and all its derrivative works." Those include Ballistics, Quantum Mechanics (chemistry as a derrivative work), and overpriced Duct Tape.

    As for the NASA License? Why not use the Jeneral Public License? (JPL) Wouldn't matter, SCO Ownzors it all.
    • Newsflash -- Apple claims ownership of the Newton, and thus Gravity. They also claim ownership of Calculus. Apple will now sue SCO for improper use of the word "derrivative" which is clearly included in Calculus.

      In other news, Microsoft has purchased a license from SCO in order to continue the use of Physics(TM) for its "System Crash" application. In turn, they are considering litigation against all fertilizer growers because of Microsoft's historical R&D in making their software work like shit.

  • I think its still a good idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HenryFjord ( 754739 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:22PM (#8352582) Homepage

    Just the fact that a government agency is willing to release code which they have created is a very postive sign. It is expected that it would be impossible to apply something such as the GPL to code maintained by a public funded entity. But even with a license more restrictive than the GPL releasing this code will obviously do much more good than harm to the open source community.

    I say kudos to them all

  • More licenses... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by koody ( 575863 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:36PM (#8352667)
    Now we are going to hear a whole bunch of silly comments like "Just release it to public domain" and "why not gpl". If you would have RTFAs you'd know that nasa has some internal requirements for anything it releases such as
    NASA legal counsel requires that all NASA releases of software include indemnification of the U.S. Government from any third party liability arising from use or distribution of the software. See 4.B.

    This is just an example, and the reason why they can't release as PD.

    Whe shouldn't be complaining about the amount of energy (and money) being used on devising yet another license, but be glad that a large institution like NASA is willing to do everything it can to be OSI compatible when it releases its source code.
    Even if this process will slow down the release, use tax payer money on lawyers etc, this is a one time cost, at least if done properly. Hopefully it will function as an example to other government instances and maybe those instances will be able to release their source code under that license once it's ready.

    My personal hope is that we will gain a new accepted license to last beside the MIT, BSD, Apache, GPL and LGPL licenses that all government instances are free to use (government source license?) as it will be accepted by nasas lawyers.

    The only thing I fear that people will see this GPL compatibility as a waste of time and money, and release it under some falf assed license that will only cause problems and incompatabilities (Sun's license, XFree's proposed license, old apache license etc etc).

    Now quit whining about how they should just release it under public domain, and be grateful that they are wasting your money on something that may benefit you directly.

    • Re:More licenses... (Score:2, Informative)

      by koody ( 575863 )
      Before a lot of people start pointing at the fact that they aren't aiming for GPL compatibiliy but for osi approval, I'll just note it here. :-)

    • isn't that already in the GPL? and pretty much EVERY EULA? This is just a bunch of lawyers making themselves 'usefull'

    • Direct from the GPL (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      NO WARRANTY

      11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD
    • Now we are going to hear a whole bunch of silly comments like "Just release it to public domain" and "why not gpl". If you would have RTFAs you'd know that nasa has some internal requirements for anything it releases such as
      NASA legal counsel requires that all NASA releases of software include indemnification of the U.S. Government from any third party liability arising from use or distribution of the software. See 4.B.

      This is just an example, and the reason why they can't release as PD.

      And their legal

  • Public Domain (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bull999999 ( 652264 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:41PM (#8352700) Journal
    I alway thought that any works done by the governemnt was considered public domain?

    • Re:Public Domain (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2004 @08:16PM (#8352872)
      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/105.html

      Sec. 105. - Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works

      Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise

  • Master list of licenses and "features" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. ( 142215 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @08:37PM (#8353002) Homepage
    We need a comprehensive master list of licenses (I know lists of them exist - we need a master list) and what their provisions are.

    A good idea would be a matrix that shows the licenses as rows and the provisions as columns.

    That would make it a lot easier to choose a license or utilize a licensed product in a legal way.
  • There is no open source licence. These GPL boffins would have you believe that in America they give away software for free. But it is all lies! I triple gauruntee that there is no free nasa software, allah be praised. The United States has said that they are approaching the free software front cautiously, but when they besige us, we will surround them it will be them who will be beseiged, allah willing. We will sell them our proprietary space software for only 299 dinar and a shoe.
  • Are that many people really against the GPL? Take a look at all the licenses available. Some examples:

    The Wilhelm Svenselius Open Source License

    Public Security Interrest[sic]

    Open Test License

    I might sound ignorant, but I had no idea there were so many different kinds of liceneses to choose from. Is the GPL that mistrusted that we have to create all these other ones?

  • An open source license of any type will be a huge step forward. I'm part of a team that recently received NASA software in support of an open source aviation safety project. The current license will let us learn from the NASA work, and the engineers at Goddard & Langley are very supportive of getting it out to the public. However, we are stuck with the same license that is used for contracted work related to national security. As a result, we cannot actually use a single line of NASA code in our app

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close