On 6/6/19, 11:55 AM, "Assaf Gordon" <assafgor...@gmail.com> wrote: Because the changes are massive, before we can start looking into their details and merits we'll need copyright assignment from the copyright holder of the code (you or NASA). ok, I will have to ask about this as I'm not sure I have the authority to assign copyright on NASA's behalf.
Additionally, A cursory look at the patches  reveals several added terms in accordance of GPLv3 section 7 (e.g. Indemnifying NASA and the U.S. government). This is of course absolutely fine and valid for a GPL project, but I'm not sure if the FSF will agree to add additional terms to GNU coreutils (I'm not saying they won't, I simply don't know). Perhaps other maintainers can chime in, and if not, it is probably wise to ask licens...@gnu.org before we can consider these patches for inclusion. yes, I had figured this might be an issue. I believe I was one of the first, if not the first, to open source a project under GPL at NASA. It took a very long time to get approval and I believe the section 7 additions were the compromise they came up with to add some NOSA-like (the NASA open source license) terms to the software. Since many years have passed, I will inquire to see if there has been any change to this requirement or if they would consider removing that clause. It might take a while to get a response though. thanks, --Paul