On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:45 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> I really don’t want to relitigate this > Yeah. Before anyone misunderstands, I am not shouting at Nigel. I AM NOT SHOUTING :-) a) the terms that were deemed questionable existed in the already approved > 1.3 and > The problem here is that OSI has approval regret. I wasn't there, but I get the impression there was a fight around the decision, and now they have regret that they approved at all and do not want to go one step farther. I can't blame them. I really don't like some of the terms. > whether the government had need to retain those terms to follow regulations > Yes, I am finding it difficult to believe that the government really does need those terms to follow regulations. I haven't seen evidence. NASA, and lots of other agencies, use other Open Source licenses with impunity. and that the terms made the license less reusable as a general purpose > license. > No, I don't believe this is the problem. The problem is that the terms do pernicious things like attempt to limit the public domain to national boundaries with contractual terms. It's a terrible precedent for OSI to approve.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
