Should Public Funds Mean Public Code?

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.

Comments

Lisa is a shill for O'Reilly

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to be down on her, but this is another in a long line of O'Reilly advertisments put forth by Lisa.

Wouldn't it be better to just hire her as the "O'Reilly editor" and have her edit submissions?

For all the talk of other sites masquerading advertisments as legitimate articles here on Slashdot, something must be said for the blatant disingenuousness of this submitter and Slashdot's willingness to post her stories.

As far as the topic is concerned, all 100% government-sponsored software should be made available under a BSD-like license. The GPL and its workalikes are too restrictive and are means to a particular political end. A truly free license would allow for public consumption of the code without any royalties.

Code that is developed using less than 100% goverment funding should be kept closed and copyright assigned to the authors of the software.