> >>> [There also were some concerns about non-reciprocity, IIRC, to which the > >>> response was the same as above] > > >>THAT would be a serious concern! I don't recall there being such a > >>problem, can you find it in the archives? If it does exist, then it > needs to be addressed. > > Here's an example of that discussion, although the history on the NOSA > license(s) is so long and so scattered it's hard to figure out if these > concerns (or any others) we rectified: > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017- > January/002931.html >
Hmmm... OK, I remember that a NOSA 3.0 was being drafted at one time, and I know it got put up on the list. Does anyone want me to go poke at the NASA lawyers to see if they'll push on NOSA 3.0 again? Alternatively, does anyone want to push on Congress to do something about copyright law so that the US Government can use the standard, already approved licenses? Thanks, Cem Karan --- Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not intended to be used as an authoritative state of the law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Government. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
