On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 11:02, John Hasler wrote: > Russell Coker writes: > > If software can't be freely used for any purpose then it can't be > > released under the GPL. The NSA assert that they have the right to > > release under the GPL and that therefore the patent issues have been > > dealt with. > > Was the work done by NSA employees? If so it can be treated as if it were > in the public domain no matter what license NSA attaches to it (that's NSAs > work in isolation, of course, not the modified kernel as a whole). As for > the Section 7 issue, note that a court judgement or allegation of > infringement must 'impose conditions'. Has this happened? If so the other > kernel authors may have grounds to sue to stop distribution by whomever the > connditions have been imposed upon.
not 100% sure about that. At least when I worked at NRL, I thought it created this murky situation of "public domain" for us citizens (or in US not sure which) but not for anyone else. maybe I didnt understand it correctly.
