On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 9:39 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: > 3. My agenda is mostly limited to wishing that we have more GOSS. > > If government lawyers believe they have a requirement for X and without X > they won’t recommend open sourcing then providing them a license that > provides X results in more open source code. This is a good thing as long as > X minimally meets the OSD. >
This is where your logic fails, and thank you for summarizing it so well. Also, there is nothing particular about government needs in this statement. Commercial actors use this exact justification for advancing their ideas of how open source should expand to meet their needs. > And as an individual member of the OSI I am allowed to disagree with the > assessment of Richard and Bruce on L-R without this disagreement being > described as “attacking the messenger”. Yes, but you don't need to bring up the same disagreement every other month. Trust me, it has already been noted! License-review exists to review new license proposals. You try to divert every new review back to a re-litigation of the NASA proposal. This is off topic and also very annoying. It is wrong toward the steward submitting the new license. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
