Well I know what I expect when I see software advertised as "open source"; then again, there's nothing technically in there that would invalidate the term should it turn out it's basically involving an NDA TO ACTUALLY DO anything with that source you're "open" to inspect.
NASA advised to study up on what open source, free software, and permissive licenses actually mean
Houston, we've had a problem: our rocket scientists don't entirely understand the nuances of software licensing. NASA, of course, is more than just rocket scientists. It's home to software engineers and other technical types, as well as those inclined to maintenance, management, and administration, and other less storied roles …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
Saturday 6th November 2021 12:23 GMT Doctor Syntax
Up to a point. But the BSD licence, for instance, doesn't meet the FSF's definition of the FOSS subset of OSS (which is the definition in the Haiducek et al paper that the article's about). However the supporters of BSD and similar ("permissive") licences will point out that FSF's definition of "free" is encumbered. They define a diferent subset of FOSS. These groups have viewpoints which are, if not exactly orthogonal, looking at freedom from different angles.
What's more the OSS definition isn't enshrined in statute or common law. The nearest it would get to becoming a legal requirement would be inclusion in contracts if required.
Professionally I've come across code which I could view (and even fed back the results of bug-hunting to its creators) but which was still proprietary and not even the whole of the application. I'd have to count that as open, at least to inspection, although in no way would I include it as open in FOSS, OSS, permissive or public domain contexts.
It seems that NASA has the old Github problem of people wishing to "publish" code without realising that "publication" has unavoidable legal requirements. Unless you actually add a licence to your "public" announcements your material is bound by default copyright restrictions.
-
Saturday 6th November 2021 13:31 GMT Brewster's Angle Grinder
"Under United States copyright law, works created by the U.S. federal government or its agencies [i.e. NASA} cannot be copyrighted....Therefore, the NASA pictures are legally in the public domain. " [Wikipedia]
I don't know if that applies to software. But it sounds like it should.
-
Saturday 6th November 2021 15:43 GMT Robert Carnegie
If it's true, I think it won't apply to taking existing "open source software" or other third party software and modifying it to meet NASA's requirement. Exactly how it won't apply, may be tricky. Open source software is copyrighted by all the authors, I suppose, the catch being that any contribution into an OSS project also is licensed for anyone to use. Being copyrighted means that users do have to abide by the licence conditions.
And presumably, U.S. government data can be legally secret. That may be not relevant, but I would assume that the Hubble Space Telescope for instance has a secret password so you can't just remote control it for fun.
-
Saturday 6th November 2021 18:31 GMT Doctor Syntax
One of the links ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?format=multiple&id=494520 ) dealt specifically with NASA attempting to release code in a way which they presumably intended to be open but with wording which just didn't fit any existing OSS environment. Looking at the licence quoted in the bug report it seems possible that a BSD-style licence might have met their intentions.
-
-
Saturday 6th November 2021 22:31 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
>I don't know if that applies to software. But it sounds like it should.
That's where it gets complicated.
If the software was created by Nasa from scratch, yes
What if it includes a numerical library, what if that library is built on another library and so on ? (hint all numerical libraries are ultimately BLAS)
What if it calls a NAG or Matlab routine, those libs aren't opensource but what's the copyright on the calls to them? Is it open source to call a commercial library? Are the argument names to a commercial library function proprietry?
The UK's official astronomy software used commercial NAG libraries under a national academic licence that came with such onerous terms you weren't allowed to even show your results to non-UK collaborators.
Until everybody just switched to using free Nasa-Space Telescope software instead.
-
Sunday 7th November 2021 20:34 GMT Malcolm Weir
Also... many NASA (and USG staffers) are not employees of the federal agency, but contractors, or sometimes employees of a government-funded research institution (FFRDC: Federally Funded Research and Development Corporation). For example, the article reached out to JPL, but JPL is a FFRDC operated by Caltech, which is a private university and legally a California nonprofit corporation. So a JPL employee is actually a Caltech employee working on projects funded by the US government.
And that gets into a new level of murky: under the "work for hire" doctrine, if *I* paid Caltech to do something for me, I would own the copyright. But the USG can't have copyrights as a result of work they themselves do, although they can own "inherited" copyrights, but the copyright has to start with someone else, and then be transferred to the government by assignment, bequest or otherwise (17 USC 105).
So something developed at JPL probably "belongs" to Caltech, but Caltech undoubtedly has obligations under their contract with NASA, as well as under various ITAR regulations (and similar: lots of things involving rockets is sensitive for "dual-use" reasons)...
Ultimately, the extent to which a NASA development could be open-sourced is likely extremely complex, which is probably what's at the root of the issue this article was talking about!
-
-
Monday 8th November 2021 11:44 GMT jimlux
Software is tricky
Software developed entirely by government employees is usually not copyrighted. Software developed by a NASA contractor might well be covered by copyright. Typically, what happens is that NASA gets a "limited non-exclusive government use" license. That is, NASA can use it, other government entities can use it, but the general public cannot. This comes about because NASA is saving money - they're paying to solve a NASA problem, not the general public's problem, and companies are free to charge more for a "free distribution no license" scenario.
It's also complicated by things like the Bayh-Dole Act, which says that educational institutions doing work for the government retain the intellectual property rights.
In general, though, one can get non-commercial use licenses fairly easily.
That all said, the whole area is one where there's a lot of inconsistency - and it gets muddled when you're talking about software that is the combination of multiple sources, each with different licenses. The "easy way" is to not redistribute such software - no redistribution, no worries about whether GPL applies, etc.
-
-
Saturday 6th November 2021 17:15 GMT Woodnag
BSD vs GPL
BSD is a release of copyright restrictions: you can do what you like with it can keep the derivatives secret.
GPL is a restriction using copyright law: you can do what you like with it, but if used in a public product you must provide the full source + compile scripts to allow others to both re-compile the code and make further derivatives.
-
Saturday 6th November 2021 18:21 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: BSD vs GPL
The essence of a BSD licence is that if the code is distributed in source or binary form the copyright notice be distributed with it - included in the source in the first case. The notice also includes the fullest possible disclaimers. That's not a release of copyright restrictions but it is a fairly minimal restriction.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sunday 7th November 2021 04:34 GMT bombastic bob
Re: What free means
free as in free beer would be "public domain" which is one option.
But, many authors want to restrict what is done with their works. Therefore you have GPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, and other licenses (as well as public domain).
The most common in Linux seems to be GPL, specifically v2 for the kernel (and I hope it never becomes v3). gcc added exceptions for static linking binaries. llvm does not appear to have any such restrictions. And so there is choice.
But seriously it should be plain and obvious how these licenses work,. And since NASA is government, i.e. "the people":, they should either GPL, BSD, MIT, or public domain ANYTHING they create that is not somehow classified (like for military applications).
It seems that photographs taken by the U.S. government are often already treated as public domain. A quick scan of wiki-media proves that. So similarly with software mods done by NASA, especially if they're trying to use Linux on spacecraft or aircraft.
They just need to do what business owners and contractors have done like, forever - put on the lawyer hat for a moment and apply common sense.
(and the FSF gladly answers GPL licensing questions which I've asked before)
-
Saturday 6th November 2021 20:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
"the license"
"This isn't just a NASA problem. It's a problem across the entire software industry. Not only do programmers not really recognize what open source is or what the rules are, I'd say most have never read the license."
Yeah right and of course nothing to do with the industry itself that has spawned a gazillion of all similar but slightly different ones and ended up with tribes that are incompatible with each other. Life's too short ...
Personally I go for Apache (what we use), BSD or MIT, Mozilla at a push and LGPL only if forced .... anything else just tends to be a PITA in a commercial situation and I'd rather pay in order to be "free" - free to do what I want...
-
Sunday 7th November 2021 05:24 GMT amanfromMars 1
Merlin the AIMagician and MetaDataBase Physician Presents a Colossus of an Existential Crisis
"This isn't just a NASA problem. It's a problem across the entire software industry. Not only do programmers not really recognize what open source is or what the rules are, I'd say most have never read the license."
Moving things on a tad to get rid of a self-servingly conceived and poorly contrived construction .... This isn't a NASA problem. IT's a NSA problem across the entire software industry whenever programmers and systems administrators recognise Open Sourcery Operating Systems are not bound and ruled by licences the way humans are.
That is surely quite simply enough put with no hint of ambiguity to aid confusion and doubt and I would commend and highly recommend that one fully understand it is the Default Base Position to Adopt and Adapt in the Business of Drivering Total Situational Awareness for it is against such like that you compete.
-
Sunday 7th November 2021 06:49 GMT amanfromMars 1
Re: The Present Colossus of an Existential Crisis
Fire in the hole, take cover if you can .......... but you sure as hell can’t ...... <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-elite-fear-rebellion-brewing-says-ceo-large-doomsday-bunker-builder”>https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-elite-fear-rebellion-brewing-says-ceo-large-doomsday-bunker-builder</a>
Not so good nowadays is it, being instrumental in ensuring the continuity of a parasitic notional 1% which by your actions in vain defence of offensive positions are you very well known to all and sundry.
Changed days ahead for everything has changed ... whether you yourself realise it or not or whether you yourself realise it with IT or not too.
Ignore at your peril is a sound warning to heed and seed for ignorance in no longer available with the comfort and assistance of bliss and arrogance.
[<i>And for whatever strange reason, try as I did a number of times, that hyperlink address steadfastly refused to render properly</i>]
-
-
Sunday 7th November 2021 12:02 GMT TeeCee
...you can take a four-year course in computer and never have a class in intellectual property,"
Try studying Law. You'll learn more about it than you ever wanted to know. This is like complaining that there's not enough about Jesus in Physics, Engineering, Mathematics, etc ad nauseum. License compatibility is for the legal eagles in procurement to wade through.
This very article just goes to illustrate what a bloody minefield of conflicting and competing terminology and licensing the whole Open Source field is. Almost as if the whole business were dreamed up by lawyers as a perpetual cash cow...
-
Sunday 7th November 2021 17:01 GMT Richard 12
"Introduction to"
Would be useful.
I did several modules that could be considered "introduction to running a business", but nothing on copyright or patents, despite everything I do being affected by copyright and patents.
You can't always ask a lawyer, they'll say both no and yes. Or insist upon a process that literally nothing else on the planet follows.
-
-
Monday 8th November 2021 10:41 GMT imanidiot
But CAN NASA even comply with OSIs defintion?
Looking at their list I'm seeing several points where likely NASA will have problems complying one way or another simply because of other laws or restrictions placed on it by the government, contractors, suppliers or international regulations like ITAR.
True, it'd be nice if they could be consistent in what license they release stuff under, and it'd be nice if they could use more widely used and recognized licenses, but the problem with "Open source" is standards. And opinions. Everybody's got one, and they're all different. (But in the end they're like *ssholes. Everybodies got one and most of them are full of sh...)