4 ms·

I thought the law was that all software, books, papers, etc. created by the US government was public domain. Seems odd to see licenses on this stuff. https://e

• cdibona 10y ago
  This is true(ish) but what happens in much of the USG is that they have contractors write the code and there is a big hole cut in the law to allow contractors to retain copyright and monetize code written for the government. The idea was that by allowing contractors to retain copyright, the costs would go down for government procurers and it allowed them to consider 'commercial off the shelf' (COTS) software. In practice, the government can and has been locked into contractors for ongoing, unending and expensive maintenance.
  • bluejekyll 10y ago
    Any software or hardware built for the US or any State government should be required to be open sourced, with zero restrictions. Same with research. It's ridiculous that we as tax payers don't have access to what we pay for. I'm glad you've put so much effort into cutting through the red tape to get this out there. Thank you.
    • cdibona 10y ago
      To be clear: I didn't release the nasa code, I went to a couple of meetings there, but they did all the work. I just eval licenses all the time as part of my job, like some kind of weirdo.
    • Haydos585x2 10y ago
      I imagine the argument is probably that you're not paying for the source code you're paying for the solution.
    • bigredhdl 10y ago
      This isn't as cut and dry as you might think. Should the US govt. pay full development cost for all software it contracts out? Contractors often take less NRE than makes sense if they can make a business case for said software elsewhere. If all contracts mean the work will be open source, then NREs will go up dramatically.
      • wang_li 10y ago
        Contrast a private software development house with a company that only services government contracts. Why should the second have the benefit of having all the development expenses covered by the tax payer while retaining the same rights as a company that doesn't have those costs covered. Seems to me that if you fund the development of the product from your own reserves, you have the right to sell to the government like it was any other customer. But if you do it as a work for hire, it's kind of bullshit to get to keep the rights and resell to other parties when possible -- who have already paid the development costs through their taxes. It would also be a bit skeevy if the government was using tax payer money to develop products that compete with existing off the shelf products. Kind of bad manners to take someone's money and then use that to kill their business too.
  • jsprogrammer 10y ago
    How do costs go down by having to repurchase what would have already been available for free?
• paxcoder 10y ago
  It's not even free software! NASA Open Source Agreement license is not approved by the Free Software Foundation because its "original creation" clause bars derivatives combining third-party code. The fact that this non-copyleft license is approved by the Open Source Initiative is as far as I know, the only thing that makes free software a proper subset of open source software.
  • jordigh 10y ago
    Yeah, this is one of the very rare instances when the OSI and the FSF disagree on a license. Thankfully, it looks like NASA has stopped using this weird license. The newer stuff that I see here seems to be under other more common free and open source licenses.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • paxcoder 10y ago
      Why do you think they've stopped using NOSA? The page claims to show 253 projects and in the same time contains 239 occurrences of "NASA Open Source 3.0" which, for some reason, is the name of links to https://opensource.org/licenses/NASA-1.3 https://opensource.org/licenses/NASA-1.3