Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
On 2007-06-10, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But the thing I was thinking about if the House bill had passed was that
any contribution by a government contractor (like a university research
project) would be in the public domain. How might that affect the GPL,
and if it did, would it mean the loss of a great source of GPLed works?
Why would it affect the GPL?
I don't see why the GPL is a special case here. The hypothetical
situation would be that a government contractor publishes a work
indicating it is licensed under license X. However a law provides
that this kind of work is public domain. The net result would be
that the license statement is void and hence irrelevant.
I just wonder what is your take on the following piece of GNU wisdom
and NASA OSA in general.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
<quote>
NASA Open Source Agreement
The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software
license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your
“original creation”. Free software development depends on combining
code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this.
We urge you not to use this license. In addition, if you are a United
States citizen, please write to NASA and call for the use of a truly
free software license.
</quote>
NASA OSA can be found here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/nasa1.3.php
regards,
alexander.
Using anything beside a Free Software Foundation approved license is the
the equivalent of clubbing innocent baby seals.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070611082734557
Dealing in any form of software that allows a proprietary, non-socialist
profit motive is tantamount to committing crimes involving infanticide.
Evil. Evil. Evil.
rjack
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
