[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA)]

What about NOSA 3.0?

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 law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Government.

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr at thyrsus.com> wrote:
> 
> All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com>:
>> Probably because there is the concern that a few folks would seek to
>> decertify licenses like NOSA and millions of lines of software that other
>> folks depend on.
> 
> That is a fair concern.
> 
> /me reads NOSA license
> 
> I would deprecate this because of the uncertainty over the interpretation
> of clause G. I would not decertify it.
> 
> I hope this illustrates a more general distinction that is helpful.
> -- 
>        Eric S. Raymond < Caution-http://www.catb.org/~esr/ > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Caution-http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org