of the NASA Open Source Agreement
(NOSA), but the FSF has a problem with section 3, paragraph G of the
license. The issue that the FSF cites is as follows:
The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software
license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your
* Paul Wise p...@debian.org [110429 03:16]:
Secondly, I was under the impression that all US Government works are
supposed to be public domain, under what circumstances is this license
used?
It's only public domain within the USA. Everywhere else you might need
a license depending on the local
Thanks for the input everyone.
Have you let the OSI know? its possible someone made a mistake, or they
may simply disagree with the FSF on this matter.
Karl - I haven't contacted the OSI directly about this. I only posted
my question to the OSI License Discuss list. For now, I'm just trying
to
I've asked the OSI license mailing list about this, and I wanted to
get the Debian take on it. I didn't see this discussion anywhere else
on this list already. Sorry if I missed it.
The OSI has approved version 1.3 of the NASA Open Source Agreement
(NOSA), but the FSF has a problem with section 3
the full license below for the archives:
NASA OPEN SOURCE AGREEMENT VERSION 1.3
THIS OPEN SOURCE AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) DEFINES THE RIGHTS OF
USE, REPRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, MODIFICATION AND REDISTRIBUTION
OF CERTAIN COMPUTER SOFTWARE ORIGINALLY RELEASED BY THE UNITED
STATES
Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
Firstly, it would be much better if they used an existing,
well-understood free license rather than reinventing the legal
wheel.
Indeed. I believe the French government standardized on CECILL, which
can be trivially converted to GPL.
Secondly, I was under
6 matches
Mail list logo
