>> 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.
Thank you for restating the underlying disagreement on the same false pretense. Governments are subject to a plethora of different regulations and laws than commercial actors. To claim or presume there are no requirements unique to Government seems quite fallacious. I won’t rehash NOSA specifics as the archives do that better, but I recall there being valid points on both sides of an impasse that was not likely to be legally tested anytime soon. > Yes, but you don't need to bring up the same disagreement every other > month. Trust me, it has already been noted! As another noted, hitting the delete key should be preferable to squelching voices and participation. > 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. Despite being hyperbole that is demonstrably untrue, his reply was to a thread about the license review process itself. In that context, consideration of past license reviews that were ostensibly process failures seems quite apropos. Cheers! Sean _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
