Should Public Funds Mean Public Code? 465
Lisa points to this article on oreillynet with "two opposing viewpoints on whether all software created by publicly funded research should be licensed as open source, and the chance to weigh in yourself." Open-source software (under whatever license) seems to me like a good way to multiply the investment of tax dollars that public funding relies on, but the counterarguments offered here are interesting.
BSD or Public Domain ONLY (Score:2, Interesting)
Publicly funded research should all either be public domain or BSD style, definatly NOT GPL, since that ends up in the same duplication of work. Anything GPL has to be duplicated at least once to get it as something BSD/PD so that everyone can use it.
Re:BSD or Public Domain ONLY (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm having trouble following your statement, although I'll give you a break since English may be a second language for you.
From what I gather, your point is, GPL'ed code needs to be cloned and re-released under a BSD-style license in order to be used in non-GPL projects, so why not just release under BSD-style license in the first place?
Well, the argument is that there is a problem where public-funded code is taken proprietary and used in a way that doesn't benefit the people who foot the bill. BSD-style licenses do not prevent this.
Perhaps what's needed is a dual licence. Code is released under the GPL and BSD licenses, and you end up with one branch that is guaranteed free forever (the GPL'ed branch) and another branch that can be intermixed with proprietary code. That way, the fruits of a public-funded project are available to everyone, but those who want to take it proprietary may also do so.
Re:BSD or Public Domain ONLY (Score:3, Interesting)
Companies are also footing the bill along with the general public.
Perhaps what's needed is a dual licence. Code is released under the GPL and BSD licenses, and you end up with one branch that is guaranteed free forever (the GPL'ed branch) and another branch that can be intermixed with proprietary code.
A two-clause BSD license would accomplish this. If you wish to absorb it into a GPL project or branch, you can do this without a problem.
Re:BSD or Public Domain ONLY (Score:2)
The three basic options (Score:3, Insightful)
2. BSD + Public Domain = Everybody can benefit
3. GPL = Only GPL users benefit
And why should the greedy corporations benefit from the public funding?
Why should a public infrastructure discriminate between a company or an individual?
I release all my work into the public domain, because I'm more interested in my work being used and available then keeping companies from profiting off it. Why shouldn't all research enjoy the priveledge to be shared with EVERYONE with no strings attached?
Re:The three basic options (Score:2)
Why should the benefits of research be first-generation only? Why should the sharing stop as soon as someone decides they don't want to anymore? Why shouldn't research be able to have continuing benefits, where those who benefit from it share their benefits? Why shouldn't those works derived from the research also enjoy the privilege of being shared with everyone?
YES! (Score:3, Interesting)
I have never understood why we give tons of money to companies/universities/etc only to see the ideas patented or something else, and not released to the general public for use. If you were paid by the public, let the public have the benefits.
What if we paid Company X to build a bridge on private lands with public money, to only be used by the person who owns the private land. It just doesn't seem right.
Re:YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider a researcher has a research program that has been going for 20 years. He may have been funced at various times by: a) the university (often academic researchers start work on the university's dime), b) government grants, c) private foundation grants, d) his own money. His graduate students may have been supported by any of those various sources or independent scholarship sources. Perhaps a tuition-paying undergraduate contributed some code at some time also.
Just like research equipment, code also accumulates. It may have been traded from other research groups. It is a real mess. Figuring out who owns what can be more or less impossible unless you have a dedicated ground-up code block that is identifiable to a project that has no contributions from anything other than public funding. (Oops, you have a Hertz fellow write 2,000 lines of the 100,000 lines of code... now what?)
Odds are that there are already too many rules regarding the code. Adding another one is just going to bollix up an already intractable mess.
Re:YES! (Score:2)
That would go a long way towards addressing the complaints brought up in the "con" essay.
Re:YES! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the fact that the government is paying researchers to develop some wonderful thing that they then go off and own completely. The government always retains rights FOR GOVERNMENT PURPOSES -- usually to everything, including source code, design drawings, what have you.
Now, they can't just turn around, take the source code, and give it to the public, but they can re-use it for any government purpose. I believe they can even give it to another government contractor to do government things. It isn't as bleak as is made out.
An argument can also be made that exclusive commercial rights are used as an incentive to get more people to step up to the plate and bid on various research proposals. I work for a R&D shop that gets funds from the government, and while I suspect we would probably be fine if we had to give away code, we certainly try to make commercial use of what we build (only sometimes successfully
Finally, a lot of people don't realize it, but the government LIKES it when people have an incentive to commercialize things. $300 toilet seats aside, the government would MUCH RATHER just go out and buy some COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) technology than pay to have it developed. If the company they give the R&D funds to can commercialize a product and get it on the GSA schedule, the government frequently considers that a job well done. This may happen just as quickly with open source, but I don't think that's been proven yet.
Finally, there are a whole class of things for which (at least initially) the government might not see a commercial use for, AND the contractor might not either [some strange intelligence application, or weird battlefield piece of hardware, for instance]. If the government can say "and if you find a commercial use for this, you can have it", more people may be interested in scratching their heads over the problem enough to respond to an RFP or bid on a proposal.
I know (Score:2)
I know the answer to this, because I spent a lot of time at a university. It's because the public funding that universities get is a pittance compared to what it costs to operate them.
This is because the citizens want guaranteed state university systems with ridiculously low tuition and high teacher/student ratio, but they don't want to pay any taxes. Somebody else should do it, and they'd better well damned do it. This absolutely requires universities and the like to make money elsewhere. They sell football tickets, and they sometimes sell software.
I don't like it, either. But if you don't like it, stop complaining about how high your taxes are and stop voting for politicians that promise to lower your taxes.
Re:YES! (Score:2)
Are they getting a grant to produce widget X, or are they getting a grant to increase our public knowlege about developing things *like* widget X?
In other words, is the actual product / code / geome map / beer can pyramid the goal of the project, or is it just a lucky result of the funded research?
I think that in the minds of the researchers, the actual (and patentable) project is the goal. But to those releasing the funds (especially public ones), I think that they want to milk the benefit of the development process. I just can't imagine a goverment agency would be sitting around trying to figure out which patent will generate the most money (though I imagine private funders would).
And I also think that the net gains reached by the research far outweighs the relatively low profits that public funds generate. I don't have any hard data on this, but thinking back along some of the more publicized successes of my alma mater (University of Utah), I can't see one instance where the money generated by a patent has outweighed the value of the research generated while developing the patent.
I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
But I don't think that public funds should dictate the use of public code. IT certainly shouldn't exclude it either. I think that they should go to the most cost effective solution that meets the needs.
Sometimes that means open source. Sometimes it doesn't. Nothing should be excluded.
--T
Yes! It should be public (Score:2, Interesting)
So you have Billons public $$ going to support the infrastructure of the university and then with a small( think million $$ ) donation some company reaping potentially huge rewards.
Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
And this should extend to not only code, but any research. How can Univ. of XYZ get a government grant, and then have the university, the prof, or the private company who pitched in some spending money get ALL of the rights to the results of the project?
Kind of a dumb question to ask around these parts.
FOIA and government source code (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FOIA and government source code (Score:5, Informative)
From the DOJ: The exemptions authorize federal agencies to withhold information covering: (1) classified national defense and foreign relations information; (2) internal agency rules and practices; (3) information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law; (4) trade secrets and other confidential business information; (5) inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges; (6) information involving matters of personal privacy; (7) certain types of information compiled for law enforcement purposes; (8) information relating to the supervision of financial institutions; and (9) geological information on wells. The three exclusions, which are rarely used, pertain to especially sensitive law enforcement and national security matters.
So, as you can see, the FOIA does *not* mean you have access to everything.
Here is more information:
FOIA Reference Guide [usdoj.gov]
Re:FOIA and government source code (Score:2)
Did they really have that many people asking about wells?
Re:FOIA and government source code (Score:2, Informative)
W
Re:FOIA and government source code (Score:2)
But maybe they meant "OIL wells"... hmmm...
Re:FOIA and government source code (Score:5, Funny)
for (int i=[BLACK];i<[BLACK];i++) {
if ([BLACK]) {
callFunction([BLACK]);
} else {
[BLACK];
}
[BLACK](i);
}
To some extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To some extent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To some extent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:To some extent (Score:2)
I stand by the view that code paid for with public money shouldn't just be open source--it should be ceded to the public domain. If it is necessary to use proprietary code on the project (and no, I'm not talking about MS Word for memos, etc.), then the project shouldn't be funded by the government.
Re:To some extent (Score:2)
It's not that easy, (Score:2, Interesting)
If my code was to be released, would I have to work out which parts were publically funded, and which were not?
The University's IP lawyers have obviously thought about this in the past. There is a clear contract stating ownership details.
As it happens, the more useful parts of the code I developed are now released under the GPL.
Agreed 95% - The other %5 should have a provision (Score:2)
However, like the article points out: There are cases where a researcher augments proprietary code, thus is unable to release the code to the public.
There should be a provision for cases like this, but this provision should be made very difficult to prevent abuse (Everybody saying thier an exception).
It sounds like the proposal needs work (Score:3, Interesting)
Having attended a public university (go bruins [ucla.edu]), I find the idea of universities profiting from publicly funded research offensive. From my personal experience, I know there were enough politicians within the UC system. Let's nip this thing now rather than encourage more professional politicians to be drawn to our centers of higher learning by the profit motive.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Re:It sounds like the proposal needs work (Score:2)
C//
i'd say so (Score:2, Insightful)
the only problem is that a mixed public and private investment problems could create some concens with the private companies, however public code is rightly deserved by the public if the public own the project. the uk is now taking a step forward in opening up public services:
code is no different (Score:5, Informative)
Are Television shows created with public funds available for my use as source material in my own movies?
Are works of art (like the infamous Mapelthorpe photos) considered in the 'public domain'?
I honestly don't know the answer, but I'm sure someone has thought about this in another domain. I wish people would stop thinking that code/cyberspace is really as new and challenging as it seems.
-db
Re:code is no different (Score:2)
Re:code is no different (Score:5, Interesting)
This picture [moosefest.com] is a classic example. It was one of the most stunning photos to come out of the montana forest fires- the low resolution of the picture above doesn't do it justice- and any AP photographer would have killed to have the rights to it. But the picture was taken by an on-duty USGS employee, and hence, everyone gets to use it.
So in several cases, yes, publically funded stuff is in the public domain.
I think it all should be, but that would doubtless deprive my University [unh.edu] of some much needed cash that the state will never give us.
Re:code is no different (Score:5, Insightful)
Code, television shows and some works of art are ALL different to most forms of property!
Most forms of property have a physical existence and are not infinitely copyable. They are called "naturally scarce" in the jargon. If I take your car, you don't have it anymore.
Code, television shows, music, films, and the written word, are all simply patterns of information, that ARE infinitely copyable. They are "non-scarce".
Our current social structure sometimes creates "artificial scarcity" out of certain "non-scarce" abstact things like patterns of information - one such artificially scarce social construct is (mis)named "intellectual property".
Unlike real, physical property, you can give me a copy of the underlying information pattern without destroying your own copy, at what is practially near-zero energy/cost. Thus, it is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to most things contemporary society badges "property".
One of the things that is happening now is that Joe Soap on the street has non-scarce access to increasing numbers of goods that are currently of merely artificially scarce statys, such as: digital music, films, etc., as well as program code.
The old megacorporations which relied on keeping such patterns of information artificially scarce for their business model are now fighting desperately to keep them that way, while millions of Joe Soaps move to bypass them in copying the non-scarce information patterns.
Remember, intellectual property is only a societal convention - if millions upon millions of people start to ignore it, then bulk society has changed, and the very concept of I.P. is obsolete in its current form - Would you have sided with the scribes when the printing press was invented? Will you side with the factory workers when/if nanotech renders physical items effectively non-scarce, and the factories become obsolete? How about when/if the march of programs effectively eliminates energy/matter scarcity altogether, and things like money and present-day economic systems like communism and capitalism all become obsolete? It could happen, and lots of people are already thinking about it - see Iain Banks' "Culture" novels.
Yes, the abandonment of the profit motive might result in less code/music/films. But personally, having seen the quality of today's code/music/films, I'm one of those people of the view that the best ones will still be made - since the best ones tend not to be made solely for profit.
PBS Can't Give Away What It Doesn't Own (Score:3, Informative)
What your tax money is really paying for is a television signal to almost every home. PBS reaches something like 98% of homes. I believe the other networks are somewhere in the 80%'s and cable is in the 70%'s.
Respondeo (Score:2, Interesting)
The only answer is YES! (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reasonable way to do it is to release the software under the GPL so that it cannot ever become closed software when used by anyone else.
Public Funding != Free Ride (Score:4, Insightful)
Author of anti-OSS article has a misconception (Score:5, Funny)
The author of the article opposing release of publicly funded works under an open source license seems to have a misconception as to what common free software licenses say constitutes source code. From the anti-OSS article:
Open source licenses rarely require that local changes be distributed. Open source licenses do not set a limit on the fees charged. Open source licenses set no restriction on when, how, or where the source is distributed (with minor exceptions). As an open source publisher I am free to release my source code only once a year, at a charge of $1 million paid at least two months in advance, and you have to accept it on paper tape while we are both standing under the Eiffel Tower. (I'll cover my own travel arrangements if you take me up on this.) If I am the original copyright holder I'm even allowed to obfuscate the code by removing comments, using nonsense variable names, and other tricks.
This conflicts with the most common definition of source code. The GNU General Public License [gnu.org], one of the most popular free software licenses, specifies the following in section 3: "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange," that is, something other than paper tape. Also, "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it," meaning that if reasonable comments aid modification, leave them in.
Public funds shoud mean public domain (Score:3, Interesting)
It should not be open source, whether GPL, BSD, Artistic License, whatever! My tax dollars should not go to push your opensource political agenda. The source code should be made part of the final progress report for the project, and I should be able to modify it to my hearts content (funded by non-government resources) without even thinking about releasing the source to my modifications. In the same way, if you want to setup a foundation that warehouses public projects, makes modifications to the code and relicenses it under an open source license more power to you.
This is a fundamental limaition.... (Score:3, Informative)
Hope this helps.
-Paul.
Good arguments but they don't support the conclusi (Score:2)
Granted, if the idea is that *all* software written which is funded by public money were to be open sourced, then Mr. Dalke has a point. But surely, it is a trivial exercise to modify the proposal to say, for example, that all software that is derived from proprietary software cannot fall under this order.
IMHO, if an idea is unworkable in its present form, see if you can modify the idea to fit reality before tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
What software are we talking about here ? (Score:2)
But what if public funds are used by the CIA to create a piece a software that spies on China or Cuba for example ? would you expect it to be open-sourced ? I hope not : the difference between the word processor and the spying software is, the former is a piece of software that people's tax money pays for, but latter is a tool to maintain national security.
Re:What software are we talking about here ? (Score:2)
Because you aren't getting the word processor. All you're getting is the ability to run a particular build of the word processor, on a particular OS, on a particular hardware platform. The moment you need to change to another OS or hardware platform, that executable becomes useless to you, and you have no word processor. At that point, the public loses the benefits of the publicly funded research, potentially forever. And that's not even getting into the fact that the public never gets the benefits of seeing how a good word processor can be written, novel and useful extensions to the word processor by 3rd parties, etc.
If the public paid, the public should own it (Score:2)
It's a question of where the line should be drawn. I believe in the GPL on principle, and I would not shed any tears if all software developed through government funding were GPL. But the forced opening of software that is derived from the GPL'd root program isn't necessarily the best way to go about things. If you release software developed by government grant as PD, then the basic tools are free to the community and there's an opportunity for commercial interests to build upon it - hopefully using an Open Source license at the very least, but perhaps not. At that point it's up to the marketplace to reward companies that keep their software open.
If an institution develops it without using government dollars, what they do with the subsequent code is their business. But what they do with our money is everyone's business. If we don't like what a private company does, we are welcome to not consume their products or services, steering our dollars away from them. But when it's our tax dollars, we do not get the same choice. And I, for one, see a line between people using a free product (obtained out of the public domain) to make money, and people building a profitable product that I can't have, using my tax money to build it. I definitely feel the latter is worse.
Public Domain (Score:2, Insightful)
It's hard to say... (Score:2, Redundant)
On the other hand, an organization like, say the NSA is publicly funded with American tax dollars. It would be impossible to say that open-sourcing their software wouldn't present any real risk.
It really is an organization-to-organization call.
What I'd like to see done with my tax money (Score:4, Funny)
Kind of like TurboTax, but for free. And if it's open-source, so much the better, you can cheat on your taxes and still blame it on the software :)
For the opposition (Score:2)
For the parts I worked on, compiling in "copyrights.c" would sometimes double the size of the object.
Government Software Research Black Hole (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the major problems of goverment funded research, even when it is contractually bound to be open for government-related inspection and use (which most of it is) is that the various players all jealously guard their turf. This includes other contractors who, even when legitimately approached for copies of the source which they are contractually bound to give you, curiously develop problems getting messages, getting back to you, shipping you source, and providing you access. You'd think it would end there, but no.
The government players themselves jealously guard their turf. Since there is similar and even duplicative work funded across DoD and government, government reps have no desire at all to share. They view the other similar projects as competitive and worry that if one of them gets the upper hand, their own project will be unfunded as redundant or irrelevant. This creates a situation where the government players -- those who are supposed to be working for the Public Trust -- instead drag their feet and use passive resistance in giving up software to even those who are allowed to see it, such as other members of goverment or government contractors working on the government's behalf.
The end result of all of this is that enormous sums of software gets locked up in boxes and never sees the light of day. About the only person who actively looks at the source is the original contractor. For research efforts, its understandable and reasonable that a research project doesn't result in a piece of software that's used by either no one or the very few. However, what's not not reasonable is that the information itself is effectively vaporized.
This is a completely execrable situation and grossly violates the Public Trust. Not only is the system vastly wasteful of the public dollar, it likewise violates the entire basis of public research: the open sharing of information.
For some time now, a sort of jewel in my mind's eye has been glimmering, and it goes like this:
All goverment software development, with the exception of sensitive projects, should be forced into placement under open license into a high profile source repostory such as Source Forge. This, for every government project, would be the primary CVS repository of the project. Project developers would insert code here and be subject to detailed public scrutiny with default anonymous CVS read access.
In my opinion this would blow open the doors of enormous amounts of software development and be of enormous benefit to the general public. Consider how neatly nipped in the bud all the beaureacratic foot-dragging would be. Intermediaries? None. You want the source code? CLICK.
This should be the new standard of non-classified government software development. The money belongs to the People, dammit! So should the research.
C//
Re:Government Software Research Black Hole (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually only the results of the research belong to the people. You can have *free* access (well, may be you need to pay for a journal subscription) to published results. As you have probably realized, you don't have free access to a molecular genetics lab, a radiotelescope, a cyclotron or any of the tools funded by public money. You do have access to a piece of paper (or pdf file) with the description of the project and its results. Why software should be different?
Do you peer review when someone is building up a cyclotron? Do you even peer review scientific publication? I think the *obligation* to publish your source code is silly, and it is stopping many people to do real work in platforms that require so. If someone wants to publish the code great, but if they don't want to do it it is not a big deal. As someone paying taxes I do not care if the software is open source or not, only if the *results* (not every tool you needed to complete it) of the research are useful and available.
Re:Government Software Research Black Hole (Score:2)
How? They can't set their CVSROOT? LOL.
Oh, you mean they want to keep it to themselves. Yeah, I gotcha. Well then, they shouldg get money from someone other than the public.
C//
Re:Government Software Research Black Hole (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue here is any public funds that are used to subsidize the research of a corporate entity in which the results of the public investment just adds to the corporate IP portfolio. When this happens how is the public served?
Case in point: You get seriously ill and you need state of the art medication. It cost some drug company 40 cents to manufacture it per dose. The drug company charges 60 dollars per dose to the consumer. The research was paid for with public funds. The profit goes to the company. The public gets screwed. I am sure that one can find other examples of this, and I am sure they are equally outrageous.
Suggested remedy (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should all public code be Open Source? First, since code is now considered speech, all Freedom of Information rules apply. This means that the code is going to have to be available anyway, unless there's some special circumstance, and that contingency is already covered above.
Secondly, there is no value to having non-open code in the public sector. When was the last time you saw NASA as the vendor, when you went to buy a flight simulator? Yet they've probably got better flight simulation code than any other organization out there. And, yes, much of it is perfectly usable in a domestic flight sim. FlightGear is a good demonstration of that.
Third, the purpose of Government R&D is to make the country more competitive and better-equipt to handle the competition of other nations. Withholding the information necessary to do that is like running in a 3-legged race, blindfold, with lead-weighted shoes, over rough terrain. Handicaps of that magnitude are not just stupid, they're economic suicide.
Public funds should equal public domain (Score:4, Insightful)
Proprietary software obviously restricts my use of what should be public domain code; I won't belabor this point. As GPL opponents so often point out, though, the GPL also restricts your actions, in that you can't hide your improvements (unless you keep them completely to yourself). The usual (and correct) rejoinder is that if you don't want to make your work available for free, then you probably shouldn't be taking advantage of others who do. The GPL is about guaranteeing that the choice available to you is available to everyone else. If government software is GPL'd, though, then no one has a choice. You've paid your taxes, you have moral ownership of the code*, but you can't legally do with it as you wish.
Let the software become public domain. Do you want to GPL your improvements? You are free to do so. Do you want to close off your improvements? You are free to do so. Will the GPL improvements code wipe the closed source improvements off the map? I believe so, but that's a rant for another day.
*P.S. Don't come back with any stupid analogies with physical property owned or developed with public funds - the analogy doesn't hold. I can't do anything I want with public lands - but I can sell pictures I take of public lands. That's the closest analogy between physical public property and publicly developed intellectual property.
P.P.S. Smart analogies are OK
Re:Public funds should equal public domain (Score:2)
You have a point, though I'm not sure I agree with it. However, from a legal perspective, it's easy to fix - write a license that only permits use by citizens or inhabitants or whatever of the nation that produced it.
The arguments against skirt the issue (Score:2)
Essentially, the arguments against complain that much research couldn't happen if it had to yield open source software because it builds on non-open source software. This ignores the fact that software developed as a result of this research cannot be distributed at all, open or closed source, as it stands today. The writer's objection only applies to code which researchers do not have the license to redistribute.
The sensible thing to do, then, to address the concerns of both parties, is to mandate that any software which is developed by public funds and then distributed be distributed under an opensource license. The real concern with software developed using public funds (IMO) is that it not be used to the exclusive profit of one individual/group/corporation while being denied to others who contributed the funds. My problem isn't when the software stays in the lab. It's when citizens' tax dollars contribute to the profits of some megacorp and citizens are then unable to access the results of their contributions.
Perhaps we are forgetting how Bureaucracy works (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine this in place in a system where the government uses/makes opensource software.
Mind you I am for this... but imagine
1) Make good application
2) Make code public
3) Person A. finds bug, reports it
4) Person B. finds a way to fix it
5) Gvnt thinks its a good idea to look over the fix first
6) rootkit released
7) (5-6 months later patch is accepted)...
Yes, the one should mean the other. (Score:4, Insightful)
That way, it could benefit everyone. People could start their own closed-source companies with it, and thereby expand the economy. GPL projects could also arise out of public code, because there is nothing that says you can't take public domain code and start a GPL based project with it.
Most definitely, publicly funded code should remain public thereby keeping control of the code out of the hands of both greedy closed-source developers and of GPL based projects that force developers to release improvements. With public domain or BSD code, both groups could benefit.
The solution is simple. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want a grant, your results become open source. No, don't steal from "closed source," come up with your own stuff, and it has to be open source, or you're not getting any money.
If you plan on making money off of your research, you're not getting a grant. The public should not be forced to pay for your profit, no matter what "societal benefits" your getting rich may provide.
Re:The solution is simple. (Score:2)
I disagree (Score:2)
Nobel Prizes... I'll agree with that, but all of those other benefits are the direct result of pulling in the most grant money, and nothing else.
Public Funding != 100% Funds (Score:2, Insightful)
You could argue that public funds should not go to closed source projects in the first place, but I would argue that the government should look to fund projects that benefit the public upon completion. Any product that doesn't (or reasonably appear to) benefit the public in some way should not be funded in the first place, regardless of the benefit of releasing the project's source code.
simplistic view (Score:2)
Views presented here are quite simplistic views of what happens at a university. Most researchers are accustomed to releasing their results into the public domain for inspection, review, and improvement -- this goes for both articles and code. Remember the articles about "opening up" research journals? Most of those in favour were the researchers themselves. Furthermore, I don't understand the argument that large companies can "dictate" what gets done with research at a university, somehow suggesting that this also extends to public funding. In general, industrial collaboration occurs under specifically worded contracts, which are usually open from the researcher's perspective -- why would a university researcher sign anything that prohibits him/her from publishing?
Besides, most often it's not some huge company locking up research, but the profs and grad students themselves who start companies based on their research (where do you think all these tech startups come from?). I fear that the knee-jerk "open the source" response would discourage university researchers from doing commercially interesting work, because it would be more difficult for them to commercialize it on their own terms. The unintended effect would probably be to drive talented researchers into commercial labs (where the source is closed anyway), or to obfuscate their code so badly so as to make it worthless.
Furthermore, how do you define "public funding"? The professor's salary is usually subsidized by the government, so is everything the professor produces to be made public? And how do you "requrire" the open release of source? Would an auditor be sent to my lab to ensure that all my source is being released, and I'm not holding anything back?
Most research has little direct commercial value, and reserchers are normally happy to release their source. Why not leave the decision up to the researcher?
Re:simplistic view (Score:2)
Good question. Here's another: Why not leave the decision to fund research up to the public via some sort of voting process? I'm being sort of a smartass here because I know that would never happen, but the point is that admit it or not, professors getting rich off of research which was funded by tax dollars is completely wrong.
Oh and:
Besides, most often it's not some huge company locking up research, but the profs and grad students themselves who start companies based on their research
Either way, it's still publicly funded work going into a private business so that a few people can get rich off of it. If the government isn't going to give me $50k to do research so I can start a company, it shouldn't pay a university $50k so you can.
Complete misinterpretation of the copyright clause (Score:5, Insightful)
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" -- Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
That seems to me a very clear statement that a public good--the Progress of Science--can be achieved by keeping "Writings" exclusive to the author.
This is a complete misinterpretation of the clause. If you go back to the original copyright laws -- the ones written by the authors of the Constitution, you will find that the Framers required, as a condition of copyright, that the works be published and distributed to the public in order to qualify for copyright. Works that were kept "exclusive" to the author, were ineligible for copyright. This is how patent law works -- if you want a patent, you must disclose to the public how your invention works. You cannot obtain a patent on a device, and simultaneously keep the operation of that device a secret. This is how copyright originally worked, before the 1976 rewrite.
In phrase "exclusive Right" was intended to be understood in the context of required publication. The "exclusive Right" is the right to exclude others from duplicating your invention or writing, not the keeping of writings "exclusive" to the author. The reason why the granting of exclusive rights -- the right to exclude -- was considered a tolerable evil was quite simple -- Such rights were only granted on condition of publication! The public good was that the works were published so that the public could learn from them, and from their examples, create new works! Hardly the case with the "licensed, unpublished, proprietary code" that Dalke is so fond of.
In fact, the keeping of writings exclusively to the author is exactly the problem that copyright was invented to solve!
The first copyright law covered books, charts, and maps. The inclusion of maps was no accident or afterthought. One of the problems in 18th century navigation was a lack of accurate maps. Mapmaking was a difficult, time-consuming, expensive process -- just as software development is today -- and with no way for mapmakers to protect their investments, they resorted to licensing agreements to restrict their users, just as software companies do today. With all of these secret maps, licensed restrictively to ship captains, very little progress was being made in accurate map-making. The problem was that no one could legally compare maps to each other, because all of the maps were locked up under non-disclosure agreements. Copyright was intended to change the situation by granting a monopoly over the reproduction of books, maps, and charts, in exchange for open publication of the works.
Dalke's misinterpretation turns the entire purpose of the Monopoly clause on its head. On the other hand, he can be forgiven for not understanding the purpose of copyright -- most of copyright law has been turned on its head in the last quarter century, beginning with the disasterous rewriting of the copyright code in 1976, and continuing with the disasterous decision to grant copyright protection to object code, and not requiring the publication of source code.
I have a brief analogy. Imagine that you, a young student, aspiring to become a novelist. A good teacher would tell you to read as many novels as you can by your favorite authors, because it's only by reading other people's great works, that you learn how to create your own great works. Imagine if you were told, "If you want to be a novelist, you may not read other people's novels -- that's illegal. You have two choices -- either learn to write from scratch, starting from grammar books, and moving on to short stories, and finally novels -- or alternatively, you can get a job with a book publisher which will permit you to read other people's novels, under strict non-disclosure agreements.
I don't think that such a system would result in very good novels, but that's exactly the situation with computer software. There's plenty of good and bad computer software, and millions of young computer programmers who would like nothing more then to be able to read and learn from that software, but the vast majority of it is locked up, never to be seen by more then a handful of people. Such software does NOT advance the progress of science. Science is advanced by publication, not by secrecy. Dalke's theory seems to be that things are ok, because "real" researchers like himself have access to the source code through their institutions, but for every elite, privileged researcher who has access to the source code, there are thousands of other people who do not, and are unable to contribute anything. They are locked out.
If we really wanted to improve the state of software, and everyone talks about how poor the quality of commercial software is, the first step is to require, as a condition of copyright, the publication of complete source code in conjunction with any object code. The problem is that our copyright law, particularly with respect to software, is so completely dysfunctional, that it no longer serves its purpose -- to build a public domain that others can draw from, learn, and improve upon.
The sole exception to the software copyright fiasco is the software published under the GPL. By mandating public disclosure of source code, programs published under the GPL fulfill the original purpose -- and mandate of copyright. The results validate the original purpose and design of copyright -- to promote scientific progress, by providing an openly published base of work that can be built and expanded on by others.
On Warez and OS... (Score:3, Interesting)
Think of it this way - take your statement that there is "massive piracy" today. I'd agree, and in fact agree so wholeheartedly that I have to ask you: If someone wants a pirated copy of a game today, can they not get one easily? In fact the only way it would be easier to pirate games is if they shipped to your door on AOL CD's. Thus, how could ppiracy increase by releasing source?
Next consider a company releasing source for a product on thier website, but selling binaries and disallowing anyone else to distribute binaries. How would that hurt sales? The
Of course where a company might loose out is that other companies would download and use the engine without paying them for it. On ther other hand, it might lead to a larger community around your product, and also get a few more people into game programming which is good for industry as a whole. I'll bet a lot of people have benefitted from the release of Quake and Quake II code to the public at large.
ID probably has the perfect balance between OS and a commercial company that can still make money on engines.
Disagree. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a GPL basher.. but I don't think the GPL is the place for it.
It should become public domain, with absolutely no restrictions attached to it whatsoever.
If someone wants to continue work and GPL it, great... their version would be GPL.
If someone wants to take it and fold it into a proprietary system, that's great too. Companies pay taxes too, you know.
Originator has no claim on public works (Score:2)
"I countered that the arguments in favor of the petition, like encouraging standardization and supporting incremental improvements, are not as strong as the originators' claim. Because of all these problems I see in the Open Informatics petition, I find that I cannot sign it."
Is that the originator, in this case, is being funded by public money. If I am working for a company to produce a software product, I don't have any rights to that finished product. Similarly, if you are working for the government when you develop something, everyone in the country should gain access to the work. I'm not even saying it should be GPL'd, but released straight into the public domain.
lets make LAWS public first (Score:3, Insightful)
a building manufacturer had to pay money just to see the text of a law concerning.. manufacturing buildings.
*cough*
he was EXTREMELY upset to see that the actual text of a public law was copyright a private company, so he posted the text of the law on a website, got sued, and lost.
this is a horriffic example of a good system gone bad.
citations (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.thompsonhine.com/news/nl/ebus_march200
not so fast... it just isn't black & white (Score:3, Insightful)
But what about the projects that are 50% private money and 50% public? What about projects that are all public money, but all private facilities and hardware? What about projects where the ideas and supervision come from the private sector?
I don't know of a general rule that covers all these situtations. If one said, "if it has $0.01 of public money, it has to be BSDed or GPLed" I know that there would be significantly less money available and that in turn means less support for graduate students and hence fewer graduate students.
So this is a case by case deal. You don't have to like it. It is just the realities of modern universities that a big chunk of their money comes from non-public sources.
-- Multics
Time limits? (Score:3, Interesting)
Recently, I've been involved with submission of an SBIR (Small Business Inovation Research) proposal, in which the Gov. gives small companies money to do research - the idea being to help create innovation - the big boys (companies over 500? people) are not elligible to get the funding.
Beauty. The interesting part is that companies who get the funding get rights to any patents as a result of the research, with the proviso that the Gov. gets to use the technology royalty free.
And as Lessig has pointed out, patents were also originally intended to help spur innovation, by giving the inventor and incentive to invent.
Also, seems to me like a lot of people end up sitting on patents - they never intend to produce the thing. I'm not sure how much of a wacked out conspiracy theory it is, but I've heard urban legends of the oil companies buying patents/rights to energy saving devices, never intending to make the device. Regardless of the truth, you can see the logic.
Back to the SBIR: So the good part is the Gov. gets rights to the results of the public money. Yea. And the underdog business gets a foot in the door. Yea.
But what if nothing is done with the patent? Or the rights are sold to one of the big boys, for a sort of denial of service attack in the patent world.
I think the patent should be reverted to the public domain (no royalties for anyone) if steps to develop the product/idea have not been taken within 1 year (in addition to the other current patent time restrictions).
Relevancy:
Why not apply the same thing to software? Gov agency's get the code for free, to diminish inter-agency rivalry. And if a private company/person/etc developed the code under a Gov. contract, they get patent style rights to it - a few years of proprietary code, which must eventually be released to the public. And if there is no active development on a commerical product (keep in mind a product aimed at being sold back to the government probably counts), then the time to release into the public domain is even sooner.
If we pay for it, then it's ours! (Score:3, Interesting)
If there is an issue of which license to use, thenit should be such a license that in the public paid for state it is usable in both GPL
and proprietary manners. But the code sate as paid for by the public remains public in that state.
Should it be altered and the GPL applied to the altered state, then the altered state onward is under the GPL. But should it be altered under proprietary control, then that version/fork remains proprietary so long as the holder of the alterations wants it to be.
Public spending so to benefit both individuals and business, for both of these things are want makes up the society for which public money (taxes) is collected and used.
It really is a no brainer for anyone but those looking for a free ride.
I knew which side I was on (Score:3, Interesting)
Not too long ago we had another story on these lines and I posted my opinion [slashdot.org]. When I reached the first argument raised by dalke [oreillynet.com] against public code my repost was straight to fingers so here I am.
Prove it! Especially from a public funded university venture! As always money can buy money (advertising buys income) but generating real revenue from software is extremely tricky (.bomb). If he specified an exact license and copy-protection scheme he may have had an argument, but only if his product has a unique quality that is quite globally beneficial within a field. In case I need explain my argument here, he should have tried to get away with I want to experiment with a modification to the algorithm used for working with databases of the secondary structure of proteins (if thats what it is, he never said) and DSSP is the only database/tool used then he could have an argument, but ONLY if you accept that non-free Open Source is as good as Free software. Yep, it most certainly does! The result of the work would be a public built and understood system (however long it takes) which can be used by anyone, anywhere and they can offer their work back into it. Take his Secondary Proteins. Could the algorithm not be examined as an entity instead of as a piece of DSSP? Could you not objectify it out? Could that work be used by others to start building a free replacement? Could he just have written it for a hypothetical system and ported out the information he needed to fill the gaps from DSSP for any demo/testing (as the first Free compiler must have been compiled by a non-free compiler unless they were madThis is the nub of the argument, I say that public money should not be used to buy private money but used to fund the social purpose of learning, dalke says if it could make money it should be allowed. This is a truly american atitude (not to say it does not exist elsewhere, but it is an american creation) in that while most other societies would have seen the choice as public or private, now a choice for surrupticiously funding your economy by subsidising private ventures is quite acceptable, why? Allowing the university to sell itself is fine, but allowing it to fund what it sells with public money AND stop people from distributing it serves purely capitalistic purposes and not the greater good (and if you want to believe that capitalism is more important than greater good thats your bag not mine).
A similar issue in other areas of research. (Score:3, Interesting)
The primary reason for this was to allow the researchers a chance to examine the data, write reports and so forth, essentially, get a return on the huge investment in time and resources each institution has to make to "buy" time on telescopes. Essentially, it keeps the motivation for those researchers. Importantly, as the data IS publicly funded, it does find its way into the public domain, as it should.
Perhaps a similar approach could be used here?
A federally-funded researcher's point of view (Score:4, Interesting)
Even ``morphological'' studies are no longer done with magnifying glasses and film, but rather with large collections of digital images from spacecraft such as SOHO [nasa.gov] and TRACE [lmsal.com]. Image calibration and reduction software is mandatory if one is to do meaningful experimental analysis.
Fortunately, the solar community has by-and-large been good about releasing analysis tools into the public domain -- in fact, there's a homebrew distribution system [lmsal.com] that grew up, mostly before CVS, to nearly-universal status within the research community. Without the tools that are available via solarsoft, I literally could not do the work that I do without developing similar things myself (in fact, I do develop tools myself, and publish them... but that's another story)
Even within the relatively open solar community, there are software-based barriers to entry. For example, most of the current community develops in a proprietary language called IDL [rsinc.com], which was developed in significant part (in its early years) with public funds. The developer, David Stern, started RSI, inc. [rsinc.com] to capitalize on his language. Currently, IDL licenses start at $1,000 per year, double the current cost of an entry-level workstation.
When workstations cost $10,000 and only large organizations could afford hardware capable of doing image processing, this cost was excusable. But now, in an era of cheap computers, high connectivity, and readily available space-borne solar data, the cost of supporting IDL is the main barrier preventing hobbyists, high school students, and interested amateurs from doing their own research programs. If IDL were open-source and free, RSI might well still exist (under the Cygnus / Red-Hat business model), and solar (and other) research would be much more accessible to the masses.
One may argue that IDL (and its competing product, MatLab) wouldn't have developed into the large, powerful packages that they are without commercialization. But such arguments are spurious: PDL [slashdot.org], the Perl Data Language, is entirely open-source and free, and powerful enough that that I am now devloping tools in it instead of in IDL.
I signed the petition, and I encourage you to, too. Publicly funded intellectual property is your property, just as the national forests are your forests. Demand them.
I vote No (Score:3, Insightful)
The articles are not talking about simply the results of publicly funded research. I agree that the results of publicly funded research, be they new drugs, funky mathematical algorithms, etc should be released into the public domain. Not copyrighted. The public at large funded the research and so the public should have access to the results to do with as they will. This includes selling stuff based on the research, and doesn't exclude the team that created it.
But that's not what the articles were getting at. They were talking about the tools used internally to get those results. A lot of those tools are proprietary though some have the good old "free for private or non-commercial use" clause in them. It also covers modifications to those bits of software that are kept purely internal.
There is nothing wrong with that, since these are merely tools used to make getting the research results easier. What you're paying for is not a little tweak to the tools your research team have made, but the actual deliverable which is the purpose of the research.
I operate exactly the same way in the real commercial world. When I do a gig for a client, they get the deliverables. A configured system, doco, maybe a specific program. They don't get copies of all my funky helper scripts that I use to get the job done. They don't get a copy of my .muttrc file because I sent project related email. They don't get my perl script that automatically uploads the newest versions of config files via ssh. That's not what they've paid me for.
So at the end of the day, making all tools used by publicly funded research GPL is not what people really mean. What they really mean is to have the results of publicly funded research be made public.
Complex Issue (Score:4, Insightful)
1st: I believe it's clear that the researchers contribute the most to these projects, as they put in their own time.
2nd: I believe after the researchers, businesses contribute the most.
3rd/4th: After businesses, clearly the university students (NOT the university) who pay the most. In many universities, the yearly tuition comes up to 20,000+ dollars a year. Multiply that by thousands of students.
4th/3rd: After students, I think the public contributes the remainder. Note, the public may contribute *more* than students, because the public contributes to many student grants, not to mention putting the students through high school.
So, now I've identified the orders of interests. So what does that mean? What should each party get for his/her/their interest in it? How can we do this while satisfying the interests of all parties?
To satisfy the researchers interest -- the researcher should be able to publish the code under a non-free license for a limited time: just enough time to allow him to make a reasonable profit considering his/her efforts (pehaps 1 or 2 years). However, he should not be able to choose the license at his will, and certainly shouldn't have the EULA option. Researchers should only be able to publish under the least restrictive license which still gives them the possibility of profit. Some critical parts of the program should be public-domain from the start, so they can be reviewed. As for the rest of the license, it should be something which does not prohibit reverse-engineering, nor does it take away end-users rights to modify it on their system, or to distribute modifications: a license like the one Quake is released under, which is very liberal.
To satisfy the business' interest (for the businesses w/c contributed to the project), they should have full access to free use of the program, as well as source code. Additionally, 1-2 years after the initial release, businesses should have the right to make modifications and sell such under the license of their choice. Should the original investor choose to release under a license like the GPL, the business would be granted an excpetion, and would be able to treat it as if a BSD license.
To satisfy the students interest. Students should get free use of the program, as well as access to the source code, so they can make any modifications they want. They get the same deal businesses get, minus the option to modify and sell 1-2 years after the initial release. Furthermore, before 1-2 years, they should have the right to release source-code additions (but not modifications). If they make modifications, they should have to release them as binaries...they may release the source code for their modifications after the "inventors" 1-2 year license expires.
To satisfy the public's interest. Of course, the government has full access to the software, free of charge. After the 1-2 year profit-making deal given the original inventor, the work falls into public domain. Should the businesses have made modifications on that original work and sold them, the modified parts are not affected, but the non-modified parts must be public-domained.
The ultimate payback the public gets for supporting inventors little projects is to have public-domain access. The more involved the public (i.e., citizen taxdollars) are, the quicker that should come. In the case of typical software, where the public does not "donate" but does support it by paying to enforce draconian IP laws (w/c, btw, should be scaled back), the public doesn't get access soon enough [20 years for patents, life + 70 and (probably eternity, if they keep on extending it) for copyrights). For things where the public is only involved in that it protects IP, it should get public-domain access in at least 10 years.
Note, this also applies for GPLed and BSDed (free) software. The public pays to support GPLed and BSDed software by enforcing the terms of those contracts. Thus, after 10 years, the original work that was GPLed (but not the modifications) needs to fall into the public domain. The modifications should fall into public domain 10 years after their publication.
Personally, I like GPL and BSD better than public domain. But as the public does pay for GPL/BSD licenses by enforcing the terms of their contracts, even things covered under them should -- by logic -- eventually have to fall under the public domain.
Remember, an ideal world is a world where there is no intellectual property at all. GPL and BSD licenses are just a way help liberate information in a world where there is intellectual property.
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
But IP that gets developed on my dime? That should never fall into private hands, no exceptions. I'm not paying taxes to subsidize the making of someone else's fortune on royalties or patent licensing fees. It's theft. If fees are to be charged for the use of the IP in question, then it should go back to the national treasury. I'm also very much in favor of making it retroactive, and punishing those who have made their fortunes by stealing IP from the rest of us.
OK,
- B
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
OK,
- B
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
Not many third parties are going to work in the public's interest. Most of them are going to work in their own interest, and if that interest ever includes taking money from a large software company they're auditing, then they'll go easy on that company. (At least until they get caught, and then they'll start distributing that wealth among Congressional campaigns.)
OK,
- B
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
now go back and read the 'dissenting' opinion, then try constructing a rational response against it. it's a thoughtful argument by an unbiased (or perhaps biased towards open source) observer, and it addresses real shortcomings of a specific proposal.
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
i still doubt you read the article "Why I'm Not Supporting the Open Informatics Petition", and honestly don't see the point in continuing a discussion with someone who's going to childishly curse at me.
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
If the part of his argument you were looking for me to address was the dependence on privately-developed source code, then you're barking up the wrong tree. It would be non-trivial to duplicate the functionality embodied in closed-source packages, but it would be a one-time, finite, fixed cost with immeasurable benefits to the research community and the public. It doesn't seem worth discussion.
And I cursed at you because you approached me like an asshole.
OK,
- B
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Demanding the knowledge (designs, algorithms, theories) gained from the research is a different story, because generating knowledge is the main purpose for doing research. Contributing funding for research is an investment, not in tangible goods, but in knowledge. Not sharing this with the contributors would be cheating, but refusing to hand over source code is no more wrong than refusing to hand over a Fusion Reactor.
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
No, but I'd want to be able to build my own Fusion Reactor without having to pay any royalties of license fees on the design. Since software seems to be treated as IP rather than physical property, it would seem to fall under this sort of demand, rather than yours.
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
Software is not like a fusion reactor - it costs nothing to make another instance of it, for one thing. Software is, it seems to me, a lot more like the knowledge it takes to build a fusion reactor.
I guess, then, that whether or not we agree on this boils down to whether or not we see a distinction between knowledge generated and the tangible product of that knowledge. In the case of fusion reactors, I think the distinction is quite legitimate. In the case of software, I'd have to say the distinction doesn't exist.
Indeed, if the algorithms used in the software were available for public use but the source code was not, all that would be needed would be for someone to write new source code to execute the same algorithms. If the new source is functionally identical to the old, what's the possible benefit of keeping it locked up? That's why I say the distinction between the algorithms and the code is a false one - the code is just a restatement of the algorithms.
OK,
- B
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2, Insightful)
You're probably the same type of person that, when pulled over for a speeding ticket, berates the cop with "Hey! You can't do this to me - I PAY your salary!"
Guess what - some tax dollars go to develop stuff that you don't use or get benefits from. Deal with it. The american technology industry wouldn't be nearly what it is if it wasn't for the investment made by the military and/or government. Do you directly get some cash out of the deal? No. But society as a whole benefits from the advancement.
Next time you're in florida, i suggest you stop by NASA and *demand* your trip on the space shuttle. After all, you 'paid for it'.
(this argument is of course orthogonal to the one about what projects are 'appropriate' to fund. Don't try to pull us off on a tangent)
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
Are you one of those delusional libertarians who goes off about how great capitalism is and decries government intervention except when it involves transferring wealth from taxpayers to your favorite industries? I mean, come on - if the technology industries' ideas were all that shit-hot, they'd have found someone to pay for them.
And you know what, I'm not whining about not getting a ride on the space shuttle (but if you could read, you'd know that). I am griping about public funds going to make private fortunes - not through the sale of goods (I have no problem with someone getting rich selling stuff to the government, as long as the gov't shops around for a decent price) - but from licensing IP that I paid for. Knowledge paid for by the public should, generally, remain in the public's hands.
Side note: I've been to the KSC and seen the Shuttle, as well as a lot of the Delta, Atlas and Titan programs. Cool stuff. Also check out the monument to Glenn and the other Mercury astronauts, if they're letting people into that part of the complex. I encourage everyone to go down and check out what they've paid for, if they get the opportunity. (And if security restrictions ever again allow them to - I went before 9/11.)
OK,
- B
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
I am speaking as an independent.
Oh, yes. The Democrats are immune to corruption. Only Republicans have that fault.
BTW, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Reasonable price. Interested?
Re:I paid for it, I want it! (Score:2)
Some might argue that even though I am not getting a direct benefit from these programs they do benefit society and myself indirectly. Wether or not I am getting my money's worth is certainly debatable, but bureaucracy creates overhead, and I don't really expect to get $1 in value for every $1 in taxes I pay. Taxes are not an investment, they are an *expense*.
Why does the benefit from software development have to the code? What if the developers are allowed to resell that software, but they are required to return a portion of the proceeds to the gov't to be used to fund other research? That would benefit the taxpayers by reducing our burden to pay for reasearch while at the same time making more money available to fund additional research.
This doesn't just apply to software either, losts of research is done with government grants that results in commercial viable IP. Should all of this belong to the Gov't?
Either you believe that the research itself benefits the greater good, even if someone profits from it, or you don't. If research benefits us all, then it is worth public subsidies, and we shuldn't expect to get our "investment" back directly. If it only benefits the people who directly profit they should bear all of the costs as well.
Re:Revenue to universities and public (Score:2)
Fair enough, if I'm paying for it in tax I expect to own the end result. If you don't want me to then don't take my money. Very simple.
TWW
Re:are nuke blueprints available at the library? (Score:2)
Re:Software engineering isn't science,its engineer (Score:2)
While I, in the long run, would like to see all code free, the really important thing for science is that the analysis is open to scrutiny. The code contains the details of this analysis, so it must be available to scrutiny. If the analysis isn't open to scrutiny, it isn't science.
However, this does not necessarily imply that it has to be Free Software or Open Source Software in the sense used by FSF or OSI. It only means that you get to see, but not touch.
While a lot of proprietary scientific software does follow this model, there is usually some code that you can't see, and I find that hard to live with. My own thesis is based entirely on free software.
If you publish all code, then the scientific requirements are taken care of, but there are other arguments that needs addressing as well, namely what serves the public and scientific advancement best. In the long run, I think Free Software does, but it'll take some time.
Re:Software engineering isn't science,its engineer (Score:2)
Re:Software engineering isn't science,its engineer (Score:2)
Re:For the impatient - a patient reply (Score:2)
If they want to keep the benefits for themselves then they should be content with such funding as the FREE MARKET will provide, period. If the free market won't fund it then it can't have been worth much right? Or maybe the dominant ideology of my country is just a sham, I dunno.
They wouldn't want to be called thieves, parasites, and defrauders of the public treasury I'M SURE --Right?.