Similar discussion list but not only for Europe?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > > I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him.
   >    > How is it FUD?
   > 
   >    The implication is that the OSI is not interested in software freedom
   >    because it disagrees with the FSF on one corner-case. This is
   >    historically and factually inaccurate.
   > 
   > This "corner case" is clear cut, the NASA Open Source agreement
   > requires any contribution to be "original", one cannot take bits and
   > bobs from another project and incopreate it into a NASA Open Source
   > licensed project.

   The GNU GPL also prevents some free software to be used.

Use is out of the scope of the GPL, see section 0 of the GPLv2.

   No the OSI has been realistic this time. The OSI was wrong in
   accepting the original Apple License for example, but the NASA
   license is just stupid, but yet a free software license.

Clearly, it isn't, since it is declared a non-free software license.

   You are just being unreasonably zealot, but that's as usual.

Please move such gibberish elsewhere.