<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><div><br>On Jun 20, 2018, at 5:32 PM, Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com">bruce@perens.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil" target="_blank">cem.f.karan.civ@mail.mil</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br></span>[CC0] mimics the copyright-based behavior as far as is possible without invoking copyright.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. NASA does not have to refrain from invoking copyright in their own license. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
</span>But CC0 doesn't handle patent issues, which we need to handle separately.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. NASA can still make patent grants in their own license.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>The point here is that NASA doesn't have to contractually restrict the public domain software where it is public domain.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br><div>1) NASA lawyers obviously disagree. </div><div><br></div><div>2) Your fear that OSI approval of NOSA 2.0 will cause some sort of harm to open source, which I disagree with, has already occurred when it approved NOSA 1.3 with no ill effects since at least 2004.</div><div><br></div></body></html>