4 ms·
I just wish they'd move away from the bloody NASA Open Source License to one of the "normal" licenses.
by sam_bristow 4y ago
I just wish they'd move away from the bloody NASA Open Source License to one of the "normal" licenses.
- jrussino 4y agoI mentioned FPrime in a previous comment... Looks like that's released under the Apache license: https://github.com/nasa/fprime/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/nasa/fprime/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
- philipwhiuk 4y agoIsn't the problem that government work is public domain so they can't legally release it copy-left?
- binarycoffee 4y agoI you think the NASA Open Source License is bad, look at the default license for non-commercial, ESA-funded software [1]. The territorial limitations effectively prevents any form of open distribution, yet the license is open enough to remove most commercial incentive for maintenance and further development: a perfect recipe to make software instant abandonware upon release. [1] https://essr.esa.int/license/european-space-agency-community-license-v2-4-permissive-type-3 https://essr.esa.int/license/european-space-agency-community...
- 0xffff2 4y agoFor what it's worth, we developers (I'm a NASA contractor who maintains a small NASA open source project) feel the same way! Our lawyers not so much. It's a very slow process to change the default, but at least a couple of projects have managed to release under Apache instead of NOSA.