Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers' Right To Open Source Research

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the something-to-think-about dept.

bstadil writes: "There is an interesting debate over at SiliconValley.com about the right of researchers funded by Universities to make their IP Open Source. It's not at all simple. On one side Universities claiming their derive 5% of their Budget from IP licenses and it's vital for continued high level of 'Output,' on the other hand researcher who claim the public is billed twice by licensing the output."

9 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. The public is not being billed twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They can't honestly expect me to agree with them when they state that since taxpayers fund the university, they shouldn't have to pay for products the university develops. Taxpayers pay for a lot of things, include government research grants, but no-one who pays their taxes believes that they somehow 'own' a share of that research! Taxes are just taxes, nothing more.

  2. It's not just employees... by cperciva · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a graduate student at Oxford University, and in the University's statutes they claim ownership of any code I write while I'm here. I am negotiating with them to try to get permission to release some of my work -- right now I'm working on network protocols, and a protocol isn't much use if nobody uses it -- and they haven't been entirely unreasonable, but after two months I still haven't got anything in writing.

    It is one thing for a university to claim ownership of work produced by their employees; it is quite another for a university to claim ownership of work produced by people who are paying to be there.

    --
    Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
    1. Re:It's not just employees... by briqui · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I found this in my contract when I started at Sheffield University and because I was already writting software (shareware rather than open source but in this case it is the same issue) the clause scared me a lot.

      I phoned up the university to querry what it meant and as a result of a long discussion with various members of staff I ended up with a different version of the contract. Universities will be flexible, but as with any other legeal contract they are out for whatever they can get away with. From the speed with which the new contract turned up and the failure to argue I assume this is not a unique situation!

  3. Why can't they do both? by alienmole · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I would think in many situations, universities could play both sides of the fence: make systems available as open source, but charge money to license code to companies that want to package it without source, in proprietary products (the SleepyCat approach that was discussed here recently).

    This approach has a better chance of working for universities than it does for ordinary commercial enterprises, for at least two reasons:

    1. The sort of software universities produce is more likely to be the kind of code that will be integrated into other systems, which lends itself to a dual licensing approach. Universities aren't selling shrinkwrapped software to consumers: they're selling more basic technology to companies that want to exploit it commercially. This could be perfectly suited to a dual licensing approach. Legitimate businesses, for the most part, are unlikely to try to base products on software that they don't have rights to.
    2. Universities don't rely on software licensing for their entire livelihood, so if an open source strategy happens to result in somewhat lower revenues, they can handle it. However, open source may be one of the best and cheapest ways of "advertising" a university's software products, so these factors could balance out.

    Besides, this is exactly the sort of issue on which we should look to universities to lead the way. Open source is an important form of cooperation, and its heritage is the very academic freedom and open sharing of information pioneered by universities. There are benefits to this cooperation that may not be completely in conflict with the profit motive; however, the truth of that claim can only be verified by those with sufficient vision to look beyond the next quarter's results. Universities are one of the few organizations which have both the vision and financial ability to do that. MIT's recent decision to make its course material freely available over the web is an example of this.

  4. If the issue is one of public funding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The the license should clearly be public domain.

    If the researcher doesn't like that, then he's not talking about open source, but some other motive.

  5. It should be the researcher's decision by YoJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think that research work done while taking money from the NSF and other public agencies should be freely available to the public. In general this means that the research is published in public refereed journals that anyone can buy and read. In some sense the "intellectual property" of the research is being given away to the public, since anyone can read it. In another sense, the researcher and the university "own" the idea since no-one else can claim credit for it. But products and patentable ideas get a bit murkier.

    I think everyone agrees that it is immoral for someone to do research while accepting public money and then keep the research secret and proprietary (except in extraordinary circumstances). There is also something fishy about a company being granted exclusive rights for an idea that was developed using public funds. The universities would like to patent everything themselves, but in practice it is often the decision of the researcher whether an idea should or should not be patented.

    If I am on a project and write code, I ask whoever is in charge if I may release the code to the public. If they say no, I would want a pretty convincing explanation of why not. I don't think public research should have any secrets.

  6. Who owns what and why? (Re:It's not just emplo..) by chris_7d0h · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And where would you draw the line?

    At my current company I "signed my life away" as part of the employment contract.
    The contract basically states that anything I create while being employed by the current employer will be theirs. It does not seem to matter if I create it on my personal computer and use none of the company's resources.
    As a matter of fact, most of the things I've created have not been based on anything provided by the company (aside from company paperwork which I'd be happy to give them the rights to :-).
    Some software specific to integrate with the company's other software and hardware have I created on one of their Laptops. I could just as well have created everything on my own PCs, but since it's tied to stuff from the company (by use or intended use) I see no moral dilemma handing it to them.

    The question is; where do you draw the line between what can be seen entitled to the company / university? If a CS student is "inventing" something and only uses his/her own equipment, is that enough to give him/her the rights to use it?

    Do the universities include "knowledge", which the student paid to receive, as university "resource" and thus are eligible to make claims regardless? If CS students base all their work on material bought privately from, say "Amazon.com", would that be enough to get the University's IP hoard off their back?

    For my part, I've seriously thought of jumping the boat next time I feel a discussion will come up about an "invention", claiming a patent, which I deem is valuable for a larger audience.This is before I make it known to the company.

    As it is now, I might get a $5000 award for something regardless whether it's value is tens, hundreds or more.

    Where are the rest of you standing on this delicate issue? How do you reason each time something you create are up for a patent?

    --
    In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
  7. Needed changes in the IP laws by 3seas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IP laws today are "cannot" based. As in you cannot use unless you have approval, etc.

    This practice needs to change to "Can" based laws. As in you can use but if you receive monies for doing so, you must direct a percentage back to the IP holder.

    Though this doesn't directly address the public vs. private investment direction, I believe it would cause such a change in IP application perspective that would be far more beneficial to all involved. And that is what the overall objective is of IP laws - to benefit humanity to the greatest potential possible.

    There has been several articles this past month or so on slashdot that go into the benefits and differences of private and public IP holdings. Now the hing to do is to merge the benefits of both into laws that everyone can better live with. IP "CAN" based laws.

  8. So few know of Farnsworth, or his inventions... by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...it's a damn shame that he's largely unknown by the public, not unlike Tesla.

    He'd invented numerous devices, 165 of them in fact, many revolving around television. RCA screwed him out of their value- Sarnoff, the CEO of RCA at that time, did everything he could to destroy Farnsworth in the courts.

    Because of this, devices like the Fusor, perhaps the smallest working hot fusion device ever devised, went by the wayside until recently.

    Fusor Links:

    Fusor Patent at the USPTO
    A 1999 article in American Scientist about the Fusor
    Richard Hull's webpages

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas