mizukami writes: "Salon.com is running a story about universities moving to profit from code they've developed, rather than release it into the public domain as has been the norm in the past. The story gives the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 as a leading cause."
That's okay by me, as long as they start including a little check-box on their Alumni Donation Forms that says "I've already donated my code, which you have sold at a profit."
Re:Fine by me
by
HiThere
·
· Score: 3, Informative
When things are handled as ethically as you are reporting, then I suppose that it's ok. Coercion is never nice, but as long as things are honest and up-front... well, you know what you're getting into.
There have, however, already been several reports of this being done in a quite unethical fashion, where the professor or the university takes both the fame and the cash. This is quite a different matter. A few people reported that they didn't even get good grades out of it. Reasons are up for speculation, but one possibility is that they protested too much.
Gross power imbalances are almost always bad, and one must be aware the the dominating party is quite likely to take unfair advantage of things. This is why "independent businessmen" were so respected up through the 1920's (and a bit of that lingers). They were the free men, and were not (usually) excessively domineering. Of course, there wasn't (usually) a gross disparity in power between them and their employees. At the end of the twenties jobs became scarse, the number of independent businessmen declined, and there *was* and increasing disparity in power "if you want a job, you take it on my terms, or you starve". Their respect declined noticably as their (relative) power rose. Note: This is just one thread of a tapestry, but I believe that it exists as I have stated.
Respect in this context is sort of a projection of what I believe would be the answers to the questions:
1) Is he a good person?
2) Do you like him?
3) Do you feel that you can trust him?
4) If you could gain by hurting him, and nobody else would know, would you do it?
5) If you could gain by hurting him, and he couldn't find out who did it, but your friends would know, would you do it?
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It only makes sense
by
Wind_Walker
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Nowadays, it only makes sense for educational institutions to start making money off of their programs. Think about it: For the "serious" programmers, they go and get their PhDs in Computer Science, and then what? Get paid to be a code monkey? I don't think so. They go and teach.
However, teaching isn't all it's cracked up to be anymore. With the government cutting the money for higher education ($100 billion last year) and with the ever-tightening restrictions imposed by Affirmative Action (raising dropout rates to 25% in some fields) it's no wonder that schools are starting to find ways to make money any way they can.
It may be going off on a rant, but it's time that we take money from the military and start giving it to the school systems (especially publically-funded schools like universities are) because otherwise, the U.S.A. is going to become a group of complete loser jocks who couldn't tell you the difference between a hole in the ground and the goatse.cx guy.
It was only a matter of time...
Re:It only makes sense
by
jandrese
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Very few public schools are research intensive.
Really? Back when I was in college the professors ALL had research projects on the side. It seems that part of being a tenured professor is that you have to do research and get yourself published, etc...
Now most undergrads aren't doing research, mostly because the system isn't set up for them to be researchers. Many (especially in the engineering and CS degress) barely have enough time to finish their homework/projects/work in the evening, much less do exaustive research in some new field. Post graduate students naturally have plenty of research projects.
Still, one thing that became painfully obvious after awhile is just how much money it takes to run a school, and how little of it there was to go around. I'm not surprised in the least to find them looking for more things to sell.
--
I read the internet for the articles.
Re:It only makes sense
by
Surak
·
· Score: 4, Informative
That's simply not true. Very few public schools are research intensive. Most of the time they are private schools like CMU or MIT or Ivy League schools which are also in operation solely through tution, alumni giving, and proceeds from research.
Hmmm? University of Michigan, Purdue University, Wayne State University, Michigan State University, and the University of California (especially Berkely) are all public and are all research intensive universities, to name five right off the top of my head. (UCB is where we get the infamous BSD-descended operating systems, btw).
As great as it would be to come up with some horrible conspiracy about how Microsoft has double agents working in University Administration, it's simply not the way it works.
FWIW, Microsoft has a long-standing history of recruiting from major universities. Microsoft and Bill Gates both have a long-standing history of donating money to schools. C'mon, you can't tell me there isn't SOME favoritism in there.:)
The reason aarpanet made it through is because there wasn't any obvious indication of how huge it would be.
ARPANet/DARPANet was a military project, not a university project. DARPA - Defense Advanced Research Project Agency. Duh. The universities wouldn't have had a choice.
Microsoft didn't do this.
Nobody said they did, but as an aside, isn't just FUN to blame Microsoft for everything? Had a bad day at work? Microsoft. Couldn't find a parking spot? Microsoft. World Trade Center explodes? Microsoft. See how fun it is?:-P
Open source, or truely free?
by
dirk
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This article seems to be stuck on the whole "they should release it open source like Linux" idea. I agree that Universities shouldn't be privatizing their ideas and making gobs of money off them by selling them to private interests. But I think they should give them away so everyone can use them, and the only way to do that is to make them public domain (or possibly something like the BSD license). I know everyone will say the GPL is the best way to go, but as they article said, this is for the public good, and that includes people who don't want to use the GPL. If you want to use this code is a closed source app you wouldn't be able to benefit from this (and that includes individuals as well as corporations). I think if they are going to release it, make it PD or BSD, that way the greatest number of people can benefit from it. GPL is a good license, but it's not the freedom something like this requires. This requires the greatest amount of freedom, not freedom with restrictions that your stuff has to be free as well.
--
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Re:Open source, or truely free?
by
bfree
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well if I was making this decision, I would state that ALL code MUST be released GPL AND then the university itself can decide if it would like to release it under any other license. Some code would be released under no other licenses (not much I would suspect) while most code would probably also be released under some other licenses such as BSD (if the uni doesn't want money) or a licensing deal to indivdual applicants where the university would charge them to give them the software under another license. If this happened ALL software developed in any university would be available for all to use provided that they redistribute any modifications they make to the original code, and each university could decide either globally or per project if they wished to try and make money from it by allowing other uses of the code. If it is release PD or BSD only than the university cannot make any money from it. Say that MS wants some code written in a Uni, but they aren't willing to take it under the GPL, then they will have to crawl up to the university and say "we would like a XXX licensed copy of the software, what can we do for you to get it?". The universities should have the power to control how money is made of their work (and to take a share if they wish) but they should also have to give as open access to the information/code as possible while not losing the right to control proprietary money making off their software. How much could TCP-IP have made by now?
--
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Re:Open source, or truely free?
by
msouth
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I have posted this elsewhere on this article, sorry for the redundancy. I used to think that all govt funded work should be released under GPL, but I eventually realized that "taxpayers" include "people that want to be able to make money on software", so it seems to me that the only way really be fair is to put it in the public domain and then let everyone develop from there. There is no reason to favor GPL'ers over BSD'ers at the regulatory level. The tax money comes from everyone, so everyone should have equal access to the results to use as they wish. I wrote this up in the debate on siliconvalley.com with Mundie and Perens. I saved a copy here:
http://www.fulcrum.org/features/public_domain.ht ml
-- Liberty uber alles.
Blame the patent bandwagon
by
Crimplene+Prakman
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Two causes for this:
The move toward more public education, including underfunding,
and
The drive towards EVERYTHING being patented in the software world
It's no coincidence that we in the/. community are here sharing opinion and working with open source, and are also interested in education. We share a thirst for knowledge and philosophy. But in this day where software is such big money, education costs are spiralling, funding is staying constant or dropping, it makes sense to the managers of these institutions to get back something from industry by patenting and licensing technologies they develop. Like the PARC and IBM labs have been doing for a while. Yes, it feels like college to work there, but now the commercial aspect is pervasive.
Perhaps, when governments figure out that not all software patents are sensible, then we'll see a return to a more sharing, less "grabby" attitude in the knowledgemakers.
Re:Blame the patent bandwagon
by
jsmyth
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Hang on: Education shouldn't hinge on funding! It's there to develop PEOPLE, not MONEY. When money gets involved, corruption follows. What education needs is decent management, with the right levels of integrity and the correct "philosophy", not just idealistic open-source types, but the same ideas that made Socrates and Plato the giants they were, the same goal of people development, teaching people to think.
--
jer
We may be human, but we're still animals - Steve Vai
Don't get me started.
by
Quixote
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This really got to me: Bill Hoskins, who is currently in charge of protecting the intellectual property produced at U.C. Berkeley, thinks it must have been a mistake. "Whoever released the code for the Internet probably didn't understand what they were doing," he says.
No, Mr. Hoskins, they knew what they were doing, apparently you don't. If making money was all that mattered to you, you should've joined a corporation.
Re:Don't get me started.
by
Rogerborg
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Had his predecessors understood how huge the Internet would turn out to be, Hoskins figures, they would surely have licensed the protocols, sold the rights to a corporation and collected a royalty
What a curiously idiotic statement. All they had to do was to to use their 20-20 prescience to decide that this arbitrary piece of technology was going to be huge, and then they could should have kept it proprietary and commercial, because god knows that wouldn't have slowed the adoption of it, right?
This is either a misquote, or Mr Hoskins needs beaten around the head with the basics of capitalist society. You can't dictate to the market until there is a market, and you can't create demand for a new technology by cackling and saying "All your install base are belong to us". Even Microsoft couldn't do that until they'd killed all the effective competition.
-- If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Don't get me started.
by
supersnail
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Berkley did not invent the internet, they did not even invent TCP/IP.
They (Bill Joy really) coded an implementation of the TCP/IP protocol which was already defined and implemented on several other systems.
They did add the standard sockets/inetd interface. And the TCP/IP stack as coded is the basis of nearly all current UNIX and all Windows implementations of TCP/IP.
However this happened largely because the code was free (as in beer), if Berkley had tried to charge for thier TCP/IP stack and patent thier sockets implmentation then SUN, Microsoft et all would probably have written thier own version rather than get into a contractual relationship for a fundamental part of thier systems.
This principal applies to almost any part of the internet as it now exits. Free and open software gets used because it is cheap, easy to improve and easy to standardise. Proprietry software is avoided because of expense, vendor lock in, difficulties in standards setting etc.etc.
As Mike Berniers Lee said "If we had charged for Mosaic nobody would have used it".
-- Old COBOL programmers never die.
They just code in C.
This could backfire
by
testy
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If colleges are doing this as a method of enhancing revenue, I have to wonder if they're prepared for the loss of potential alumni contributions that actions like this could cause. There is also the possibility that schools could be found (by a court, for instance, or tax authorities) to be functioning as for-profit entities; that opens up a can of worms that no administrator wants to deal with.
Finally, I'm curious as to how many talented students will be motivated to continue cranking out code for a lab that may take it from them and sell it with no compensation. Comp Sci departments are already struggling with high dropout rates as skilled students leave to make money in full-time positions. I don't see these kinds of actions as ways to encourage good students to stay in school and finish off their degrees.
Let's just kill the goose, shall we?
by
Svartalf
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The Internet wouldn't be what it is today without it having been released the way it was. If they tried to profit from the protocols, etc. the thing wouldn't have been much different than the other networks of the day- they'd have not seen the money they think they would have. Basically, that UC Berkley guy's a clueless fool for thinking that it was a mistake and that Berkley would have seen much of anything from it.
-- I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Re:Let's just kill the goose, shall we?
by
dunstan
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Exactly. Look at some of the technologies which were developed by Sun:
NFS - released for free. Widespread.
NeWS - brilliant Windowing system, far better than X. Kept Proprietary. Died.
Java - released for free (effectively). Widespread
To roughly quote Stallman: making people pay money each time they use a copy of your software is the biggest disincentive you can create for its widespread adoption
Dunstan
--
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
It's more complicated.
by
westfirst
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The article is good, but it misses some points. First, Los Alamos is a far cry from a university. They develop atomic weapons there and those are classified.
Second, many government research contracts force the professors to share their code. The Mach kernel, for instance, began life at Carnagie Mellon thanks to government money. Rick Rashid, one of the project's leaders, released it with a very open BSD-like license. He says that work developed with the public money deserves to be as free as possible. This has been going on for some time.
I suppose it could be getting worse, but I don't know if it is as bad as the author suggests.
Re:It's more complicated.
by
msouth
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Disclaimer: I did not read the article.
Second, many government research contracts force the professors to share their code.
Can you back this up? I am not sure why it was in the same paragraph with:
The Mach
kernel, for instance, began life at Carnagie Mellon thanks to government money. Rick Rashid, one
of the project's leaders, released it with a very open BSD-like license. He says that work developed
with the public money deserves to be as free as possible. This has been going on for some time.
In this case, you have a person who realized that decided he should license things this way, and did so. I think that, when it happens, this is why.
I have worked on various projects that were funded by your tax money, and they are now being sold as proprietary software. In that case, the person who got the grant did not decide to put it out as open source. I also do not have numbers to back myself up, but I am guessing that the vast majority of government contracts do not require the source code to be released under a BSD type license.
I wrote something about this on the siliconvalley.com debate with Mundie et al:
Re:It's more complicated.
by
tburkhol
·
· Score: 3, Informative
From the NSF's Grant Policy Manual:
To preserve incentives for private dissemination and development, NSF normally will not restrict or take any part of income earned from copyrightable material except as necessary to comply with the requirements of any applicable government-wide policy or international agreement.
The disposition of rights to inventions made by small business firms and non-profit organizations, including universities and other institutions of higher education, during NSF-assisted research is
governed by Chapter 18 of title 35 of the USC, commonly called the Bayh-Dole Act.
Essentially, since 1980, NSF (et al.) has stopped asking that federal research be released to the public, instead giving the grantee "first refusal."
Re:Not suprised
by
Mononoke
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In an age where public funding for higher education, in the US, is on the decline, public institutions will do what it takes to remain open.
That would be ok if the money is used wisely, but this is the real world. They'll redo the landscaping and remodel the administration building (Hell, nevermind remodel! Build a new one!) before they pay instructors and TAs what they are worth, and maintain labs reasonably.
-- NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Exploit students as cheap labor and get away it!
by
gpinzone
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Most kids struggle just to afford college. Tuition rates at most
private and even many public universities are astronomical. Many students
need to get a part-time job just to make ends meet. If these institutions
of higher learning want to make a profit off their students' coding efforts,
that's fine with me. Just as long as they send those students their
royalty checks when the software those students developed starts making
money. Hey, this will be a great way to beef up the PHD. program!
Get paid while you learn! Granted, you won't make as much as you could in
the "real world," but it's a safe alternative considering the dot-com
bust. And hey, if the software doesn't sell, the student's don't get
paid. Seems fair, right?
I've got the funny feeling universities aren't going to be so "forward
thinking."
Re:The dabate of late has been...
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
we need more money for education... well now you have a choice, either they can sell the code they have developed, or taxes can go up...
If NCSA hadn't been quite so... obstructive, the university probably have gotten a huge donation from Netscape Corporation at the height of the bubble, which if they were smart they'd have converted to cash money. The same's true for UCB and Cisco... probably many other situations too, where companies are spun off, or founded by graduates using intellectual property.
Universities aren't built to make money directly be releasing products per se. You can't even count degree-granting as such; your money buys you the right to attend classes and sit exams, not to pass them. Universities also earn money by conducting research for industry, but the nature of research is that it's open-ended and ongoing, more like a time-and-materials contract (like a consulancy) than a units-shipped model (like a games house).
Universities can make money in the private sector, but they way to do it isn't to imitate corporations. Taking equity in a spin off to exploit research funded by the university itself from an internal budget in return for facilities space is a proven model.
Finally, this scenario is different in the UK, where the majority of university funding comes from the taxpayer. The license attached to that code should make it free for use by UK citizens, but charge a fee to everyone else.
Re:strong analogy to copyright
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
wow, MIT, and your still an idiot.
You fail to see the difference between a published work that can still be accessed by the public yet protected and code that is copyrighted, not public domain, and illigal to reverse engineer.
Do you get it? Probabaly not. So let me put it this way. Anyone can get access to my university library and rifle through all sorts of research. So its still in the public domain and open to debate. We can have a discussion about whether Chomsky was smoking crack or not when he thought up generative grammar based on his works.
But if universities start to restrict who can see the research (for fee is considered a restriction in my book) then we are in a situation where only the wealthy get to know. And I imagine that if schools start to license software they will not release the source. And this is very bad. As a programmer I have been shocked by the poor level of real world skill I have seen in profs I have worked with. I have seen more than one prof sent home. Unfortunatly, most of the public believes profs are Gods. And this is marketable as long as you keep reality a secret. And that is what scares me. The profit drive conflicts with the needs of science for open debate.
Did you get that? You might want to read it again.
You can't have your cake and eat it , too...
by
GKChesterton
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
These universities and labs should either be 100% private or 100% public. If they're public, if they accept public money, then the results should be available for all citizens to see and use. Alternatively, if they want to auction or license something off to the higher bidder, then the "revenue stream" should go back to the public taxpayers, not to the university or lab. We're the real "owners" of the product because we paid for it.
On the other hand, if they want to become private organizations and get off the public dole, then they can do what they want.
GKC
They better not...
by
spatrick_123
·
· Score: 3, Funny
If those bastards sell my "Hello, World" code from Intro to CompSci I'll sue them for everything they're worth!
Because it's not their box, or their time. This is a university, not Corporate Entity X. The students already paid to be there. They aren't making "works for hire". Regardless of the legalities of it, and I suspect there may be some issues - while patents are almost always required to be signed over to the school, I'm fairly sure that the school doesn't get copyright on works developed by students, else alot of Lit majors would be up the creek - it's morally bankrupt.
Here's how they should break it out.
by
OS24Ever
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There should be two methods of determining whether or not the university can make money off their product.
Rule #1) If Students worked on the project, and were not compensated by things such as free tuition, comparable salary with public sector, or royalties of the distributed project they can not sell it.
Rule #2) If the project was funded by the US Government, State or Local Government, it can not be sold.
Rule #3) If the finances come from money that is considered 'tax deductable' by the person(s) giving the money, they can no sell it.
Rule #5) All proceeds from said sale of software is taxable as a standard corporation.
Until the rest of the Americans wake up and realize what is going on with education, it will continue to go down the tubes. It's not that Universites have suddenly gotten greedy, it's that they've suddenly gotten desperate. College Tuition is getting to be out of reach for more and more people. Or, more and more people are starting life with $40,000, $50,000, even $60,000 worth of debt for basic state universities.
It's a sad commentary on America. Guess which departments of Universites are the best funded?
Sports.
It's pathetic.
--
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Re:Here's how they should break it out.
by
jdavidb
·
· Score: 3, Informative
$40000 for a state university? In Texas, it was around $1500/semester when I started, and around $2000/semester when I finished. We're a little below national average but not that much. I can see that much or more for private schools.
Re:Here's how they should break it out.
by
blakestah
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There should be two methods of determining whether or not the university can make money off their product.
So now you are going to re-define the rules ? Well, let me take a stab at presenting the likely reply from the Intellectual Property Office.
Rule #1) If Students worked on the project, and were not compensated by things such as free tuition, comparable salary with public sector, or royalties of the distributed project they can not sell it.
Legally, exclusive copyright licensing from code written by students for class projects belongs to the school. This copyright licensing will help to maintain the very education that the student was receiving, and future students will receive better education at less cost because of this licensing.
Rule #2) If the project was funded by the US Government, State or Local Government, it can not be sold.
Money alone does not buy you intellectual property. If you fund a research project, that money assures that the project gets done, nothing else. If you want to fund a project and maintain the intellectual property, you might think about maintaining in infrastructure that can support researchers careers, instead of just donating a few hundred thousand dollars.
Rule #3) If the finances come from money that is considered 'tax deductable' by the person(s) giving the money, they can no sell it.
Again, this is a gross misunderstanding of what you get for your buck. At a corporation, you pay for the project, you pay for the researcher's overhead, you ensure he has a retirement plan, you give him benefits, you give him resources to ensure he can do the work, and part of his job description is creating intellectual property for the corporation.
At a university, the researcher gets grants from a variety of sources. The University provides job stability, the University provides overhead, the University provides benefits for the researcher, and the University has exclusive licensing to all intellectual property (although the holder maintains some rights for royalties). But it is not part of the job description that faculty create intellectual property. Promotions do not consider it. It is just a bonus. And it is the decision of the University as to what happens to it. The University is still much more responsible for the actions of its faculty than the grant sources.
It's not that Universites have suddenly gotten greedy, it's that they've suddenly gotten desperate.
Would you deny that such IP laws have had benefits ? For example. the Cohen-Boyer patent between UCSF and Stanford created Genentech, and has funnelled a BILLION dollars back to those universities, which are now boosting research. Cohen and Boyer did not have to make this patent to keep their jobs, but the careers of hundreds of investigators that followed them are much easier as a result, and more basic science research will get done.
On the other side, if Berkeley has licensed BSD originally, there would probably be no FreeBSD today, and much of our Internet software would perform much worse. Somehow there is a time to sell licensing rights, and a time to give them away, and a morass of ethical issues in between.
Hiding research results/prototypes is bad science
by
adadun
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Science depends on the ability to duplicate research results. It must be possible for independant researchers to duplicate and verify the results of other scientists, otherwise the results might just as well have been made up. If research prototypes in the form of source code are being hidden behind intelectual property laws and proprietary licensing, science will stop moving forward.
If the software produced is the result of the research, then hiding the source code is even more disasterous. Hiding research results it probably the best way to totally cripple science as we know it.
Research must be conducted under the scrutiny of the public eye to be truly useful.
Re:Legalities?
by
nanojath
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't necessarily say it is right (particularly universally right) but this kind of thing is far from uncommon, at least in the physical sciences: patented chemicals, processes, even genes. The Cisco issue isn't really relevant - that was a matter of a dipute of whether a now private company (Cisco) was utilizing technology or knowledge that in truth belonged to the university.
There are two sides to this - on the plus side, I think it is great if a university can generate a badly needed revenue stream from the work they do. On the other hand, any privitazation of science reduces access, public value, and collaborative potential of that science.
Another issue not much adressed is that undergrads and graduate students often get screwed in the process - experiencing little reward from the product of their labor.
--
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Look at FFTW, for instance
by
adadun
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
FFTW, "the fastest Fast Fourier Transform in the West", is an implementation of the DFT (Discrete Fourier Transform) that was developed as part of a research project at MIT. FFTW is released under the GPL, and Section 1.4 in their FAQ one can read that they are using the system you describe:
We could instead have released FFTW under the LGPL, or even disallowed non-Free usage. Suffice it to say, however, that MIT owns the copyright to FFTW and they only let us GPL it because we convinced them that it would neither affect their licensing revenue nor irritate existing licensees.
This is getting pathetic
by
xeeno
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I can just see it now. Grad students will be forced to sign non-compete documents. Just imagine. Some poor schmuck finishes his thesis after 6 years of slaving away, publishes a paper in his area of expertise, and is sued by university for breach of contract because he collaborated with someone from a competing university.
What's next? Journals filled with nothing but abstracts and hundreds of blank pages because the results of the experiments are copyrighted? Why don't we just ditch the entire peer review process while we're at it - nothing good has ever come of it.
If you're a publically funded university then the results of your research should be public domain, end of story. It's sad to see that universities are becoming more and more all about the money.
Re:There is a simple way around this...
by
vidarh
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Whether you put (C) in your software doesn't affect who has the copyright, and in many cases university rules say that anything you create while a student or employee that uses university resources will automatically belong to the university.
This is not new. My university has been doing this as far back as I can remember, and they've required signed intellectual property agreements from researchers, staff, students, and contractors who participate in research projects for at least a dozen years now. The formula to decide who owns what percentage of the IP derived from any specific project is complex, but it has to be because of the way projects are funded there. One program I worked on was financed partly by federal funds, by an industry consortium, by an individual donor, and by the university's general fund money. The federal funding came from multiple sources, each with their own IP restrictions. The long and short of it was that if you worked on this project, it was guaranteed that nothing you invented was yours. If I thought up something new and unique and patentable in the shower before I went to work, they owned it, not me.
But I'm not saying this is a bad thing, because the money the university makes off licensing IP is used in part to keep tuitions down and offset taxes. So I can continue to afford classes, and I can live where I live because the tax rates aren't outrageous.
Most universities are corporations these days. And most of the people in the administration not only treat it that way, but are under serious amounts of pressuer to make a school profitable.
Let's see, University of California at Berkly is a state school. That should make Hoskins a state employee. State schools may be under pressure to trim costs and earn money, and they have strayed into the IP game, but their mandate should still be research and education. What are they making money for if not to create and dissiminate information?
Also, remember that DARP etc was all Federal money. The federal government did not give that money to UCB so that UCB could have a never ending franchise.
Hoskins should resign. His statements violate the spirit of the original research grants and his mandate.
-- DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The University of Illinois, where Mosaic (the first graphical Web browser) was developed, licensed the source code to Spyglass for commercial distribution.
Good news: Spyglass re-licensed it to a major corporation, so the university would get a percentage of all sales of that corporation's version.
Bad news: The corporation was Microsoft, the version was Internet Explorer, and it was distributed for free (as in beer). A percentage of $0 doesn't fill the coffers very well.
P.S.: The authors of Mosaic were annoyed by the university's policy, and wrote a new browser at a company named Mosaic Communications. The university claimed Mosaic was their trademark, so the company changed their name to Netscape.
-- Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Biting the hand that feeds:
by
aphor
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If you think the move to privatize CS research is natural and good, you are mistaken because you do not understand the economics of the scientific process and peer-review. If the universities and labs make valuable software, then why shouldn't they make money off of it? Oh, they should "make money off of it" for sure, I'm not arguing that. What you have to understand about my argument is that you can make money without restricting software distribution. You don't have to say "you can't copy it or use it or see it unless you pay me first."
Economically, it is crucial to learn the difference between economic value and market value. If you say the distinction is unimportant, let me remind you there is no such thing as a free-market economy where economic and market value are fully balanced. There are cases where a thing has more economic value than market value and vice versa.
A piece of research software, in the form of a source tarball, can be compiled into a useful productive component of a machine. It can also be modified, improved, extended, etc. to create a new source tarball which can be compiled into a superior component of a productive machine. The source of the value in any of these elements is the ingenuity of those who created the original source code (or those who created the theory behind it). Most of the combined science of prior history is always a necessary ingredient for this ingenuity and vision.
Newton: "If I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Ask yourself if you could do without Newtonian Physics on the chance that prior work was unavailable because some greedy short-sighted boob decided not to let anyone read Aristotle (for example) on the off-chance something of great value would come of it and boob would be left out? If you think about it, I.P. licensors are usually assholes trying to set up a retirement plan based on the value of someone else's continuing work.
You can't believe in God if you believe in intellectual property. You can't take it with you!
Now the economy is "adjusting" to the wild ambitions of people who discovered the Internet late... People who were around for the whole thing know that the value of the Internet is actually pent-up demand coming from prior licensing bungling with the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Circut-Switched networks are not as efficient as Packet-Switching.
I'm sorry for the livid tone, but I'm tired of all the whining Ayn-Rand type wannabes running around thinking "I'm a good person, I suffer righteously, and I got the other guy down so I'm gonna stick it to him!"
I know (because I'm educated) that the litmus test for what side you're on is whether you believe you're partly responsible to future generations or not. Just think about what kind of world you would like to be born into and live that choice. Damn. I'm too worked up to even finish an argument. I retract everything. Forget I said any of this...
Travel is not a particularly efficient way to gather this information. Here you can see that the USA, on an absolute measure, comes fifth, with Switzerland the only sizable country ahead of it. (Others are small banking specialists and tax dodge havens like Luxembourg.)
If you measure standard of living as "the amount of stuff you can buy given local prices" the the PPP numbers on the same chart show the USA is third, with no sizable country ahead of it. "Cost of living", which you cite, is best measured this way.
Now one could make a quite valid argument that standard of living really includes things like nice weather, beaches, elephants, or icebergs. Depending on which of those you chose, of course, the country coming out near the top would differ.
Note that historically, the USA is not always so completely in front. The dollar is presently overvalued by many measures. But it is a historical feature of the last several decades that the US is always near the very top by these metrics.
What is astonishing about this is that the USA is both so large and so rich. I would argue that gives us (I am a citizen) a much greater obligation than we currently acknowledge to help the poorer bits of the world, for example by hunting down malaria cures.
Mosaic versus Netscape
by
peter303
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The U. of Illinois super-computer center really
blew when they were extremely protective of Mosaic- the first really widespread internet browser. So Clark and Andressen just blew them off and became billionaires. If U of I just asked for a small piece of the company, they would have cleaned up.
Re: Tuition increases
by
King_TJ
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
No, Universities have not "suddenly gotten greedy". The problem is, they've been too greedy for a long time - and the results are really starting to show!
I place most of the blame at the feet of the upper-level administrators of the colleges and Universities. My father is a PhD, teaching at a state-owned college, and the level of corruption is incredible. The dean and his appointees all give themselves large raises every year, while he announces to the faculty that once again, he won't be able to give out a raise due to budget constraints. He also, of course, feels his job requires the college to provide him with a car.
All of this starts a chain-reaction, where you get only bottom-of-the-barrel teachers willing to work there. These "teachers", in turn, pass students on through the system without ensuring that they've really learned the material. (For the small salaries they're paid, they don't want to put up with fights with students who scream and moan that it's "unfair I got an F in your class!")
These same deans and administrators are more concerned that their campus looks impressive and top-notch than whether or not their teachers are using the latest textbooks. They know that lucrative govt. grants aren't possible without dazzling the TV and print media. In fact, they typically spend so much time being a spokesperson for the college/University, they fail to notice what goes on "day to day" in the institution.
When they do win these grants, do they really help the students? Only partially. Again, grants are great profit-makers for the higher-ups. I've heard stories of schools that hire people full-time just to research and apply for as many grants as possible. Then, these people get a cut of the money off the top as a reward for each one they get.
And what did they get out of this?
Just a a measely $92 million dollars in gifts
from their founders (with another $60 million
in suspension). Imagine how much money Stanford
would have made if it ran these companies itself.
Maybe about 64 cents.
On the other hand Stanford did invest about $3000 initially in HP, plus some low cost land.
That only got them about $600 million in donations from the founders over the decades.
They didn't forget what the net gave to the world. They are all just pissed they didn't get rich off it. Imagine if they didn't open source it Microsoft would have probably bought the rights. We would all be surfing Internet 2000.
Re:The dabate of late has been...
by
Lemmy+Caution
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Do you have any idea how tiny the NEA (and the associated NEH) is? Why this gets trotted out as an example of government waste is a mystery to me.
History re-write
by
cgleba
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. . .
If I remeber it correctly ARPA paid BBN Corporation in Cambridge, MA to put and IP stack on BSD, which in turn it gave back to Berkley so that it could become "public domain". After that Berkley re-wrote the IP stack and added a plethora of tools (I think Bill Joy tries to take all the credit for the IP-stack re-write. ..another history re-write).
I'm pretty sure my history is correct. In that case how the hell this retard, Bill Hoskins, at Berkley ever expected Berkley to "license" it lord only knows.
I absolutely love how technology-related companies and universities re-write history to show that they were on top. I wrote a 20-page paper about MS re-writing history a few months ago that I'll perhaps post here some day when I have more bandwidth. . .
its wrong, but it makes sense
by
markj02
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's wrong, but it makes sense--if you subscribe to the Republican legal and economic philosophy: only the profit motive propels people to do things efficiently, therefore only by privatizing everything do you lower costs and make innovation move into the marketplace faster. It's the thinking that would have condemned us to decades of Compuserve because it would have kept the Internet from happening. It's a classic instance of the adage that every complex problem has a solution that's simple, easy to implement, easy to understand, and wrong.
The government has a place in developing and deploying basic technologies: roads, space technology, weapons technologies, communications technologies. Government support is what made this nation great and powerful. The market cannot address these needs, and it never has.
Yes, I have heard this lament before
by
Kiwi
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Bill Hoskins, who is currently in charge of protecting the intellectual property produced at U.C. Berkeley, thinks it must have been a mistake. "Whoever released the code for the Internet probably didn't understand what they were doing," he says.
I remember, back in 1993, Eric Allmann (The original Sendmail devloper), in an interview, was lamenting that if he had a nickel for every Sendmail installation, he would have become a very rich man.
Of course, this would have never have happened. We are looking at traditional market economics: The less something costs, the more people will purchase (or use) the item in question.
The only reason that Berkeley's TCP/IP stack and that Sendmail caught on was because they were the most open-source implementations out there. If Berkeley listened to the likes of Bill Hoskins, people would have simply used some other more open codebase, or have implemented their own open codebase.
For example, when somebody tried to extract licensing fees out of people using his MP3 decoding codebase, people simply re-implemented an MP3 decoder, not using his code. When Fraunhoffer started mumbling about MP3s being patented, people implemented OGG Vorbis.
The same thing would have happened with a Bill-Hoskins-license code base. The code would be forgotten today, and some other free implementation would be the one everyone is using today.
- Sam
--
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Universities should not get into business...
by
linuxlover
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Look at what happened at University of Illinois. All Mosaic hackers are from university and the university claimed that the software they did belonged to uni. Students in disgust left and rewrote another browser --> Netscape. The rest, as we all know it, is history.
Even before the release of Netscape, university tried to sue them for copyright infringement. But finally they saw the light and settled.
Jim Clarke says all this in his book 'Netscape Time'. He also contrasts how Stanford and Illinois operate. Stanford EE and CS departments get their 'investment back' in donations (often in millions worth of shares of startup companies). Illinois, tried to cash in on students' work and ended up with a creamed face.
Slashdot Mirror
That's okay by me, as long as they start including a little check-box on their Alumni Donation Forms that says "I've already donated my code, which you have sold at a profit."
------
Today's Top Deals
However, teaching isn't all it's cracked up to be anymore. With the government cutting the money for higher education ($100 billion last year) and with the ever-tightening restrictions imposed by Affirmative Action (raising dropout rates to 25% in some fields) it's no wonder that schools are starting to find ways to make money any way they can.
It may be going off on a rant, but it's time that we take money from the military and start giving it to the school systems (especially publically-funded schools like universities are) because otherwise, the U.S.A. is going to become a group of complete loser jocks who couldn't tell you the difference between a hole in the ground and the goatse.cx guy.
It was only a matter of time...
This article seems to be stuck on the whole "they should release it open source like Linux" idea. I agree that Universities shouldn't be privatizing their ideas and making gobs of money off them by selling them to private interests. But I think they should give them away so everyone can use them, and the only way to do that is to make them public domain (or possibly something like the BSD license). I know everyone will say the GPL is the best way to go, but as they article said, this is for the public good, and that includes people who don't want to use the GPL. If you want to use this code is a closed source app you wouldn't be able to benefit from this (and that includes individuals as well as corporations). I think if they are going to release it, make it PD or BSD, that way the greatest number of people can benefit from it. GPL is a good license, but it's not the freedom something like this requires. This requires the greatest amount of freedom, not freedom with restrictions that your stuff has to be free as well.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
and
It's no coincidence that we in the
Perhaps, when governments figure out that not all software patents are sensible, then we'll see a return to a more sharing, less "grabby" attitude in the knowledgemakers.
This really got to me:
Bill Hoskins, who is currently in charge of protecting the intellectual property produced at U.C. Berkeley, thinks it must have been a mistake. "Whoever released the code for the Internet probably didn't understand what they were doing," he says.
No, Mr. Hoskins, they knew what they were doing, apparently you don't. If making money was all that mattered to you, you should've joined a corporation.
Finally, I'm curious as to how many talented students will be motivated to continue cranking out code for a lab that may take it from them and sell it with no compensation. Comp Sci departments are already struggling with high dropout rates as skilled students leave to make money in full-time positions. I don't see these kinds of actions as ways to encourage good students to stay in school and finish off their degrees.
The Internet wouldn't be what it is today without it having been released the way it was. If they tried to profit from the protocols, etc. the thing wouldn't have been much different than the other networks of the day- they'd have not seen the money they think they would have. Basically, that UC Berkley guy's a clueless fool for thinking that it was a mistake and that Berkley would have seen much of anything from it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The article is good, but it misses some points. First, Los Alamos is a far cry from a university. They develop atomic weapons there and those are classified.
Second, many government research contracts force the professors to share their code. The Mach kernel, for instance, began life at Carnagie Mellon thanks to government money. Rick Rashid, one of the project's leaders, released it with a very open BSD-like license. He says that work developed with the public money deserves to be as free as possible. This has been going on for some time.
I suppose it could be getting worse, but I don't know if it is as bad as the author suggests.
Hell, there can never be enough art museums on campus, can there? Notice how only 2 out of the cluster of six photos on this typical college home page seem to having anything to do with education.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Most kids struggle just to afford college. Tuition rates at most private and even many public universities are astronomical. Many students need to get a part-time job just to make ends meet. If these institutions of higher learning want to make a profit off their students' coding efforts, that's fine with me. Just as long as they send those students their royalty checks when the software those students developed starts making money. Hey, this will be a great way to beef up the PHD. program! Get paid while you learn! Granted, you won't make as much as you could in the "real world," but it's a safe alternative considering the dot-com bust. And hey, if the software doesn't sell, the student's don't get paid. Seems fair, right?
I've got the funny feeling universities aren't going to be so "forward thinking."
we need more money for education... well now you have a choice, either they can sell the code they have developed, or taxes can go up...
If NCSA hadn't been quite so... obstructive, the university probably have gotten a huge donation from Netscape Corporation at the height of the bubble, which if they were smart they'd have converted to cash money. The same's true for UCB and Cisco... probably many other situations too, where companies are spun off, or founded by graduates using intellectual property.
Universities aren't built to make money directly be releasing products per se. You can't even count degree-granting as such; your money buys you the right to attend classes and sit exams, not to pass them. Universities also earn money by conducting research for industry, but the nature of research is that it's open-ended and ongoing, more like a time-and-materials contract (like a consulancy) than a units-shipped model (like a games house).
Universities can make money in the private sector, but they way to do it isn't to imitate corporations. Taking equity in a spin off to exploit research funded by the university itself from an internal budget in return for facilities space is a proven model.
Finally, this scenario is different in the UK, where the majority of university funding comes from the taxpayer. The license attached to that code should make it free for use by UK citizens, but charge a fee to everyone else.
wow, MIT, and your still an idiot.
You fail to see the difference between a published work that can still be accessed by the public yet protected and code that is copyrighted, not public domain, and illigal to reverse engineer.
Do you get it? Probabaly not. So let me put it this way. Anyone can get access to my university library and rifle through all sorts of research. So its still in the public domain and open to debate. We can have a discussion about whether Chomsky was smoking crack or not when he thought up generative grammar based on his works.
But if universities start to restrict who can see the research (for fee is considered a restriction in my book) then we are in a situation where only the wealthy get to know. And I imagine that if schools start to license software they will not release the source. And this is very bad. As a programmer I have been shocked by the poor level of real world skill I have seen in profs I have worked with. I have seen more than one prof sent home. Unfortunatly, most of the public believes profs are Gods. And this is marketable as long as you keep reality a secret. And that is what scares me. The profit drive conflicts with the needs of science for open debate.
Did you get that? You might want to read it again.
These universities and labs should either be 100% private or 100% public. If they're public, if they accept public money, then the results should be available for all citizens to see and use. Alternatively, if they want to auction or license something off to the higher bidder, then the "revenue stream" should go back to the public taxpayers, not to the university or lab. We're the real "owners" of the product because we paid for it.
On the other hand, if they want to become private organizations and get off the public dole, then they can do what they want.
GKC
If those bastards sell my "Hello, World" code from Intro to CompSci I'll sue them for everything they're worth!
Because it's not their box, or their time. This is a university, not Corporate Entity X. The students already paid to be there. They aren't making "works for hire". Regardless of the legalities of it, and I suspect there may be some issues - while patents are almost always required to be signed over to the school, I'm fairly sure that the school doesn't get copyright on works developed by students, else alot of Lit majors would be up the creek - it's morally bankrupt.
There should be two methods of determining whether or not the university can make money off their product.
Rule #1) If Students worked on the project, and were not compensated by things such as free tuition, comparable salary with public sector, or royalties of the distributed project they can not sell it.
Rule #2) If the project was funded by the US Government, State or Local Government, it can not be sold.
Rule #3) If the finances come from money that is considered 'tax deductable' by the person(s) giving the money, they can no sell it.
Rule #5) All proceeds from said sale of software is taxable as a standard corporation.
Until the rest of the Americans wake up and realize what is going on with education, it will continue to go down the tubes. It's not that Universites have suddenly gotten greedy, it's that they've suddenly gotten desperate. College Tuition is getting to be out of reach for more and more people. Or, more and more people are starting life with $40,000, $50,000, even $60,000 worth of debt for basic state universities.
It's a sad commentary on America. Guess which departments of Universites are the best funded?
Sports.
It's pathetic.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Science depends on the ability to duplicate research results. It must be possible for independant researchers to duplicate and verify the results of other scientists, otherwise the results might just as well have been made up. If research prototypes in the form of source code are being hidden behind intelectual property laws and proprietary licensing, science will stop moving forward.
If the software produced is the result of the research, then hiding the source code is even more disasterous. Hiding research results it probably the best way to totally cripple science as we know it.
Research must be conducted under the scrutiny of the public eye to be truly useful.
There are two sides to this - on the plus side, I think it is great if a university can generate a badly needed revenue stream from the work they do. On the other hand, any privitazation of science reduces access, public value, and collaborative potential of that science.
Another issue not much adressed is that undergrads and graduate students often get screwed in the process - experiencing little reward from the product of their labor.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I can just see it now. Grad students will be forced to sign non-compete documents. Just imagine. Some poor schmuck finishes his thesis after 6 years of slaving away, publishes a paper in his area of expertise, and is sued by university for breach of contract because he collaborated with someone from a competing university.
What's next? Journals filled with nothing but abstracts and hundreds of blank pages because the results of the experiments are copyrighted? Why don't we just ditch the entire peer review process while we're at it - nothing good has ever come of it.
If you're a publically funded university then the results of your research should be public domain, end of story. It's sad to see that universities are becoming more and more all about the money.
Whether you put (C) in your software doesn't affect who has the copyright, and in many cases university rules say that anything you create while a student or employee that uses university resources will automatically belong to the university.
This is not new. My university has been doing this as far back as I can remember, and they've required signed intellectual property agreements from researchers, staff, students, and contractors who participate in research projects for at least a dozen years now. The formula to decide who owns what percentage of the IP derived from any specific project is complex, but it has to be because of the way projects are funded there. One program I worked on was financed partly by federal funds, by an industry consortium, by an individual donor, and by the university's general fund money. The federal funding came from multiple sources, each with their own IP restrictions. The long and short of it was that if you worked on this project, it was guaranteed that nothing you invented was yours. If I thought up something new and unique and patentable in the shower before I went to work, they owned it, not me.
But I'm not saying this is a bad thing, because the money the university makes off licensing IP is used in part to keep tuitions down and offset taxes. So I can continue to afford classes, and I can live where I live because the tax rates aren't outrageous.
Let's see, University of California at Berkly is a state school. That should make Hoskins a state employee. State schools may be under pressure to trim costs and earn money, and they have strayed into the IP game, but their mandate should still be research and education. What are they making money for if not to create and dissiminate information?
Also, remember that DARP etc was all Federal money. The federal government did not give that money to UCB so that UCB could have a never ending franchise.
Hoskins should resign. His statements violate the spirit of the original research grants and his mandate.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The University of Illinois, where Mosaic (the first graphical Web browser) was developed, licensed the source code to Spyglass for commercial distribution.
Good news: Spyglass re-licensed it to a major corporation, so the university would get a percentage of all sales of that corporation's version.
Bad news: The corporation was Microsoft, the version was Internet Explorer, and it was distributed for free (as in beer). A percentage of $0 doesn't fill the coffers very well.
P.S.: The authors of Mosaic were annoyed by the university's policy, and wrote a new browser at a company named Mosaic Communications. The university claimed Mosaic was their trademark, so the company changed their name to Netscape.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
If you think the move to privatize CS research is natural and good, you are mistaken because you do not understand the economics of the scientific process and peer-review. If the universities and labs make valuable software, then why shouldn't they make money off of it? Oh, they should "make money off of it" for sure, I'm not arguing that. What you have to understand about my argument is that you can make money without restricting software distribution. You don't have to say "you can't copy it or use it or see it unless you pay me first."
Economically, it is crucial to learn the difference between economic value and market value. If you say the distinction is unimportant, let me remind you there is no such thing as a free-market economy where economic and market value are fully balanced. There are cases where a thing has more economic value than market value and vice versa.
A piece of research software, in the form of a source tarball, can be compiled into a useful productive component of a machine. It can also be modified, improved, extended, etc. to create a new source tarball which can be compiled into a superior component of a productive machine. The source of the value in any of these elements is the ingenuity of those who created the original source code (or those who created the theory behind it). Most of the combined science of prior history is always a necessary ingredient for this ingenuity and vision.
Newton: "If I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Ask yourself if you could do without Newtonian Physics on the chance that prior work was unavailable because some greedy short-sighted boob decided not to let anyone read Aristotle (for example) on the off-chance something of great value would come of it and boob would be left out? If you think about it, I.P. licensors are usually assholes trying to set up a retirement plan based on the value of someone else's continuing work.
You can't believe in God if you believe in intellectual property. You can't take it with you!
Now the economy is "adjusting" to the wild ambitions of people who discovered the Internet late... People who were around for the whole thing know that the value of the Internet is actually pent-up demand coming from prior licensing bungling with the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Circut-Switched networks are not as efficient as Packet-Switching.
I'm sorry for the livid tone, but I'm tired of all the whining Ayn-Rand type wannabes running around thinking "I'm a good person, I suffer righteously, and I got the other guy down so I'm gonna stick it to him!"
I know (because I'm educated) that the litmus test for what side you're on is whether you believe you're partly responsible to future generations or not. Just think about what kind of world you would like to be born into and live that choice. Damn. I'm too worked up to even finish an argument. I retract everything. Forget I said any of this...
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Please, go travel for a while, get your head on straight.
The US has neither the highest per-capita income int he world, nor the highest standard of living.
As for 'lower salaries'.. salary means absolutely nothing until compared to the cost of living. Seriously.
The U. of Illinois super-computer center really blew when they were extremely protective of Mosaic- the first really widespread internet browser. So Clark and Andressen just blew them off and became billionaires. If U of I just asked for a small piece of the company, they would have cleaned up.
No, Universities have not "suddenly gotten greedy". The problem is, they've been too greedy for a long time - and the results are really starting to show!
I place most of the blame at the feet of the upper-level administrators of the colleges and Universities. My father is a PhD, teaching at a state-owned college, and the level of corruption is incredible. The dean and his appointees all give themselves large raises every year, while he announces to the faculty that once again, he won't be able to give out a raise due to budget constraints. He also, of course, feels his job requires the college to provide him with a car.
All of this starts a chain-reaction, where you get only bottom-of-the-barrel teachers willing to work there. These "teachers", in turn, pass students on through the system without ensuring that they've really learned the material. (For the small salaries they're paid, they don't want to put up with fights with students who scream and moan that it's "unfair I got an F in your class!")
These same deans and administrators are more concerned that their campus looks impressive and top-notch than whether or not their teachers are using the latest textbooks. They know that lucrative govt. grants aren't possible without dazzling the TV and print media. In fact, they typically spend so much time being a spokesperson for the college/University, they fail to notice what goes on "day to day" in the institution.
When they do win these grants, do they really help the students? Only partially. Again, grants are great profit-makers for the higher-ups. I've heard stories of schools that hire people full-time just to research and apply for as many grants as possible. Then, these people get a cut of the money off the top as a reward for each one they get.
And what did they get out of this? Just a a measely $92 million dollars in gifts from their founders (with another $60 million in suspension). Imagine how much money Stanford would have made if it ran these companies itself. Maybe about 64 cents.
On the other hand Stanford did invest about $3000 initially in HP, plus some low cost land. That only got them about $600 million in donations from the founders over the decades.
They didn't forget what the net gave to the world. They are all just pissed they didn't get rich off it. Imagine if they didn't open source it Microsoft would have probably bought the rights. We would all be surfing Internet 2000.
Do you have any idea how tiny the NEA (and the associated NEH) is? Why this gets trotted out as an example of government waste is a mystery to me.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. . .
.another history re-write).
If I remeber it correctly ARPA paid BBN Corporation in Cambridge, MA to put and IP stack on BSD, which in turn it gave back to Berkley so that it could become "public domain". After that Berkley re-wrote the IP stack and added a plethora of tools (I think Bill Joy tries to take all the credit for the IP-stack re-write. .
I'm pretty sure my history is correct. In that case how the hell this retard, Bill Hoskins, at Berkley ever expected Berkley to "license" it lord only knows.
I absolutely love how technology-related companies and universities re-write history to show that they were on top. I wrote a 20-page paper about MS re-writing history a few months ago that I'll perhaps post here some day when I have more bandwidth. . .
The government has a place in developing and deploying basic technologies: roads, space technology, weapons technologies, communications technologies. Government support is what made this nation great and powerful. The market cannot address these needs, and it never has.
I remember, back in 1993, Eric Allmann (The original Sendmail devloper), in an interview, was lamenting that if he had a nickel for every Sendmail installation, he would have become a very rich man.
Of course, this would have never have happened. We are looking at traditional market economics: The less something costs, the more people will purchase (or use) the item in question.
The only reason that Berkeley's TCP/IP stack and that Sendmail caught on was because they were the most open-source implementations out there. If Berkeley listened to the likes of Bill Hoskins, people would have simply used some other more open codebase, or have implemented their own open codebase.
For example, when somebody tried to extract licensing fees out of people using his MP3 decoding codebase, people simply re-implemented an MP3 decoder, not using his code. When Fraunhoffer started mumbling about MP3s being patented, people implemented OGG Vorbis.
The same thing would have happened with a Bill-Hoskins-license code base. The code would be forgotten today, and some other free implementation would be the one everyone is using today.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Look at what happened at University of Illinois. All Mosaic hackers are from university and the university claimed that the software they did belonged to uni. Students in disgust left and rewrote another browser --> Netscape. The rest, as we all know it, is history.
Even before the release of Netscape, university tried to sue them for copyright infringement. But finally they saw the light and settled.
Jim Clarke says all this in his book 'Netscape Time'. He also contrasts how Stanford and Illinois operate. Stanford EE and CS departments get their 'investment back' in donations (often in millions worth of shares of startup companies). Illinois, tried to cash in on students' work and ended up with a creamed face.