Possibly. I think the proposed copyright statement, dealing with the XSEDE, multi-site contributions, is the more critical component. One potential advantage of using a more widely familiar license (MIT, Apache 2.0), is that those options might be more familiar to the legal offices at the partner sites. UCAR/NCAR, for example, has given blanket approval for MIT, Apache 2.0, and one other I can never remember.
Apologies - I went back to the document and now see that there was an Apache License, Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) acceptable to UIUC legal, and I think it's OK to use the guidance at that site to require XSEDE developers to include the associated text in their source files and documentation.
Should XSEDE simply adopt the NCSA license? See https://opensource.org/licenses/NCSA
Possibly. I think the proposed copyright statement, dealing with the XSEDE, multi-site contributions, is the more critical component. One potential advantage of using a more widely familiar license (MIT, Apache 2.0), is that those options might be more familiar to the legal offices at the partner sites. UCAR/NCAR, for example, has given blanket approval for MIT, Apache 2.0, and one other I can never remember.
Apologies - I went back to the document and now see that there was an Apache License, Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) acceptable to UIUC legal, and I think it's OK to use the guidance at that site to require XSEDE developers to include the associated text in their source files and documentation.