<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Neither Cem or I is NASA but my impression is that NASA is eager to move to 2.0 is approved.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I dunno what “retire” officially means but there are NOSA 1.3 code bases outside of NASA’s control but those are forked from NASA open source releases. Those would move to 2.0 at their own discretion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don’t think anybody but NASA creates brand new NOSA projects so I would expect new releases would occur under 2.0.</div>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
Sent with BlackBerry Work<br>
(www.blackberry.com)<br>
<br>
<div class="gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid; padding-top:6px; font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Simon Phipps <<a href="mailto:simon@webmink.com">simon@webmink.com</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Wednesday, Jun 20, 2018, 4:49 PM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0 and Government licensing [was: moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]]</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:44 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:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<span class=""><br>
</span>Are you worried that NOSA 1.3 and 2.0 will be active at the same time? </blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Remind me, are you proposing to retuire NOSA 1.3 on approval of NOSA 2.0?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>S.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>