7 ms·

This is the first time I heard about the "NASA Open Source Agreement" [0] software license, which, sadly, is not GPL-compatible. I am confused why a government

This is the first time I heard about the "NASA Open Source Agreement" [0] software license, which, sadly, is not GPL-compatible. I am confused why a government agency can release something more restrictive than the public domain. I wish license awareness was a part of more discussions. I've noticed a trend on HN to be dismissive or unaware of the implications of such things until it's too late. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement

Rochus 5y ago
> which, sadly, is not GPL-compatible A lot of even more common open-source licences are not "GPL compatible", mostly because they don't require "copyleft" (which also applies to the NASA license). All approaches have their specific advantages and disadvantages. GPL has disadvantages as well.
- detaro 5y ago
  A license doesn't have to be copyleft to be GPL compatible.
  - Rochus 5y ago
    Unless you want to use GPL code in your project which uses a non-copyleft license?
    - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
      CDDL and GPL are both copyleft. They are not compatible.
      - Rochus 5y ago
        Pls define "compatible"; this is a totally ambiguous/undefined term; that's why I put it in quotes in all of my comments.
        fluidcruft 5y ago
        "Compatible" means that two licenses don't have terms/conditions that contradict. CDDL was deliberately designed to conflict with GPL. For example https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux
        Rochus 5y ago
        > means that two licenses don't have terms/conditions that contradict This approach is too simplistic. It should also be remembered that each state has its own legislation and the effect and enforceability (and thus the "compatibility") of the licenses differs in each country. It also depends on what you specifically intend to do with the OSS licensed components. A conclusion can only be reached for the specific case at hand, not in general. As long as there are no supreme court rulings for the specific case or a sufficiently similar case, the legal situation remains uncertain.
        fluidcruft 5y ago
        There's plenty of enforcement precedent. The fact that big-pocket companies settle rather than go to court against the FSF says more than you think it does.
        Rochus 5y ago
        > There's plenty of enforcement precedent. Unfortunately not. There are some rulings on a few issues, but far too few to establish solid practice. > settle rather than go to court Unfortunately, this is a practice that is already known from the patent field, and which unfortunately also opens the door to trolls. Especially the big companies would have the necessary budget to have important license issues clarified in court. By the way, the FSF and others could also take legal action on various unclear points of their license, but they knowingly refrain from doing so because the risk is too great for them, too.
        fluidcruft 5y ago
    - fluidcruft 5y ago
      There are many licenses that have fewer requirements than a GPL or copyleft license. People can take that code and make their own versions that are proprietary/closed source for example. If the license is "compatible" then it allows anything the GPL or copyleft requires and is similar to a company taking the code and making it proprietary as far as the original license is concerned.
    - detaro 5y ago
      I.e. then GPL is not "your non-copyleft license"-compatible. License compatibility often is not bidirectional.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    In fact, permissive licenses are much more likely to be GPL compatible/combine-able because they don't care if you relicense the combined work to GPL, whereas copyleft licenses are much more likely to include a provision that the result can only be under the same license, and since GPL imposes the same requirement you're left with incompatibility.
User23 5y ago
The work was probably done by a contractor. In that case it’s not a work of the US Government and the government can be assigned copyright.

Rochus 5y ago

> which, sadly, is not GPL-compatible A lot of even more common open-source licences are not "GPL compatible", mostly because they don't require "copyleft" (which also applies to the NASA license). All approaches have their specific advantages and disadvantages. GPL has disadvantages as well.

detaro 5y ago
A license doesn't have to be copyleft to be GPL compatible.
- Rochus 5y ago
  Unless you want to use GPL code in your project which uses a non-copyleft license?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    CDDL and GPL are both copyleft. They are not compatible.
    - Rochus 5y ago
      Pls define "compatible"; this is a totally ambiguous/undefined term; that's why I put it in quotes in all of my comments.
      - fluidcruft 5y ago
        "Compatible" means that two licenses don't have terms/conditions that contradict. CDDL was deliberately designed to conflict with GPL. For example https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux
        Rochus 5y ago
        > means that two licenses don't have terms/conditions that contradict This approach is too simplistic. It should also be remembered that each state has its own legislation and the effect and enforceability (and thus the "compatibility") of the licenses differs in each country. It also depends on what you specifically intend to do with the OSS licensed components. A conclusion can only be reached for the specific case at hand, not in general. As long as there are no supreme court rulings for the specific case or a sufficiently similar case, the legal situation remains uncertain.
        fluidcruft 5y ago
        There's plenty of enforcement precedent. The fact that big-pocket companies settle rather than go to court against the FSF says more than you think it does.
        Rochus 5y ago
        > There's plenty of enforcement precedent. Unfortunately not. There are some rulings on a few issues, but far too few to establish solid practice. > settle rather than go to court Unfortunately, this is a practice that is already known from the patent field, and which unfortunately also opens the door to trolls. Especially the big companies would have the necessary budget to have important license issues clarified in court. By the way, the FSF and others could also take legal action on various unclear points of their license, but they knowingly refrain from doing so because the risk is too great for them, too.
        fluidcruft 5y ago
  - fluidcruft 5y ago
    There are many licenses that have fewer requirements than a GPL or copyleft license. People can take that code and make their own versions that are proprietary/closed source for example. If the license is "compatible" then it allows anything the GPL or copyleft requires and is similar to a company taking the code and making it proprietary as far as the original license is concerned.
  - detaro 5y ago
    I.e. then GPL is not "your non-copyleft license"-compatible. License compatibility often is not bidirectional.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  In fact, permissive licenses are much more likely to be GPL compatible/combine-able because they don't care if you relicense the combined work to GPL, whereas copyleft licenses are much more likely to include a provision that the result can only be under the same license, and since GPL imposes the same requirement you're left with incompatibility.

User23 5y ago

The work was probably done by a contractor. In that case it’s not a work of the US Government and the government can be assigned copyright.