Thanks for that. I'll need to look at the license more carefully. It's all a bit Greek to me.
> Each Contributor represents that it's Modification is believed to be the Contributor's original creation and does not violate any existing agreements, regulations, statures or rules, and further that Contributor has sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this Agreement.
> The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your "original creation". Free software development depends on combining code form third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this.
The license is considered a OSI compatible license and I don't really see the confusion on that violating LGPL. I guess you could argue an FEA code written with numpy would violate that license, but I think I'm going to not think that (since it would be a strange requirement). I don't see the FSF's point. I know what I want it to mean. I'm just not sure it does.