Comment: Re:GPL not appropriate for taxpayer funded project (Score 1) 116
The issue is that a license like the GPL is discriminatory to certain business models, namely those that keep source code changes private.
Huh, the GPL doesn't forbid you from keeping changes private. It forbids you from distributing changes without source. If you don't distribute, there is no problem.
And there is no business model so your point is not on topic.
Sure there is. It's part of many organisations' business models. To take one heavy-handed example, Google. They grab Linux-based source code, create their own internal distribution, and use it to power internal development and massive servers that are turning in a pretty penny.
Comment: Re:GNU complaint seems somewhat bogus? (Score 1) 116
Comment: Re:GPL not appropriate for taxpayer funded project (Score 1) 116
Huh, the GPL doesn't forbid you from keeping changes private. It forbids you from distributing changes without source. If you don't distribute, there is no problem.
Furtheremore, Whatever, GPL isn't the only free license. Use a BSD-style license or any other license without copyleft.
I still don't understand how an agency of the US government can claim copyright, though. Usually what happens is that the government subcontracts to individuals and are then bound by the copyright claims of those individuals. How is NASA getting away with this?
Comment: Re:GNU complaint seems somewhat bogus? (Score 1) 116
Comment: Not free, but open source (Score 3, Informative) 116
Why does NASA, a government agency, claim copyright on software?
And why does NASA release software under a non-free license?
It's not that hard. Use an existing license. Stop inventing your own licenses that conflict with truly free collaboration.
Comment: MAFIAAfire (Score 1) 219
Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 465
Comment: Wesnoth (Score 1) 329
Emacs violates GPL since 2009->
Link to Original Source