| gabriel rosenkoetter on Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:50:09 -0400 |
|
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:13:36AM -0400, Joel A. Matz wrote: > Th government is not (or should not be) in the business of mandating > future use of it research. Distributing the fruits of publicly funded > research under GPL would require all future derivatives to also > distribute source. The theoretical, eventual mandate isn't expected to be followed just by government agencies; it's a recommendation to businesses. > Seems much more appropriate for them to just release the unclassified > stuff under public domain. Would this be an appropriate time that a BSD-style license (STILL!) allows for recognition of authorship without limitation of use? Nah... In any case, this is just typical Newsforge FUD. Here's what the letter congresspeople are being asked to sign *actually* says: For these reasons, it is essential that the National Strategy affirm federal tradition by explicitly rejecting licenses that would prevent or discourage commercial adoption of promising cyber security technologies developed through federal R&D. Totally vague. You can explicitly reject that vague concept all you want; it's meaningless (just as everything that's getting slapped into Dick Clarke's "cybersecurity" is). -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpzTdP9gGsQ8.pgp
|
|