Researchers' Right To Open Source Research

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."

Comments

Re:Holy Troll Batman

[abe ferlman]

Well, we've settled it- you're not not serious.

You just think that anyone who wants freedom is a totalitarian.

You must also think that black is white, night is day, dumb is smart and smart is dumb.

It's not. It's true that evil people like to wrap themselves in the rhetoric of freedom. It's true that Stallman doesn't just want to make choices for himself. He wants everyone to have the maximum amount of freedom- and a system where no one can limit the ways in which others use information is a system where the greatest possible freedom for the greatest number is achieved.

Let me put it this way. If a company writes a license that says "you may use this software only on the condition that you permanently renounce your first amendment right to free speech". This would be a legally invalid license- you may not legally renounce your right to free speech, because it is a fundamental right. Similarly, Stallman thinks that not every license is valid- specifically, licenses that require people to give up fundamental freedoms, like the freedom to interact with the information in their world unconditionally, are illegitimate.

Certainly you don't think licensers have the freedom to choose any license they like? For instance, "you may only use this software if you kill the president". I hope you don't think that programmers have the freedom to impose this license on their users. Once we agree that there are some licenses that are illegitimate even if both parties agree, then we are simply discussing *which* licenses are illegitimate, and Stallman's answer is "the licenses that most restrict freedom are illegitimate".

You are implying that the freedom to restrict others freedom is fundamental, but Stallman thinks that the freedom to restrict others freedoms makes freedom the privelege of the few rather than the right of the many, and prefers the second situation to the first.

Given that we *must* choose one, everyone who has an opinion on this matter must, according to your theory, be an "anti-freedom totalitarian", since if their ideas are adopted they will be imposed on everyone. Each one limits freedom in some way- which one limits freedom least? You can't stand still on a moving train buddy.