this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
25 points (85.7% liked)
Asklemmy
47593 readers
704 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this is a nice answer, I tried rn asking phind ai assistant, and it clarified the misconception (attached image)
So they can't share whatever they made anyway I guess.
So anything that NASA produces alone with public money is for the public by default ?
Anything that NASA civil servants produce and publish is in the public domain by default. NASA can spend public money on contracts that don't result in public domain information.
In this case, if NASA spends public money to buy (license) a commercially available compiler from PGI, that compiler doesn't magically become open source just because NASA is a paying customer.
Got it, I can see why people in U.S argue for NASA to receive more funding considering how much they achieve with pretty little. Although I don't see it viable for humanity to live in another planet as NASA or SpaceX fans tend to say, not even in another 10 thousand years.