Open Source Science

This means it can't be GPL'd by spitzak · 2003-07-01 17:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

This does mean that such work cannot be released under the GPL either (since the GPL requires copyright), it must be public domain.

I don't think this is a bad thing, actually. But I'm sure the lobbyists are going to twist this into "the government can't *buy* GPL code".

Re:This means it can't be GPL'd by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-01 17:05 · Score: 2, Informative

nah. it can still be GPL'd. Software code will simply be available under dual licensing: PD & GPL. Actually, any license can be used. Even proprietary.
Re:This means it can't be GPL'd by Alsee · 2003-07-02 04:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

This does mean that such work cannot be released under the GPL either

While you're right it can't be released under the GPL, you are perfectly able to take the relased public domain work and stick it into the GPL. Hell, Microsoft can take stuff from the public domain and stick it into Widows and under their licence.

It doesn't prevent people from working on existing GPL code either, it just takes an extra step. You just release a public domain patch. Anyone (including you) can then apply that patch to a GPL project and release it that way.

We just might need a new patching tool that is extra careful not to include any of the text of the source into the patch. It also needs to be able to grab code from one existing project and copy it into another existing project. Worst case you could implement it as a brain-dead key logger as you work on the project. Make the log file public domain and it can be used to update GPL code.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Wonderful news! What's next? by ghutchis · 2003-07-01 17:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

This would be great news and will certainly level the research playing field. The major research universities and companies can currently afford the massive prices required to subscribe to a wide variety of journals. One of the first responces, IMHO will be the increase in research quality outside the current "research farms."

But I'm not sure I agree there are "excessive profits" at journals, especially since some of them have recently spent big $$ to digitize and archive old articles--in many cases dating back over a hundred years. But since many of us are almost exclusively using online access to journals, distribution charges will decrease dramatically.

So the big question isn't whether this should happen--it should. Science ideally should be a meritocracy of ideas, not dependent on how much your school is willing to spend on journals. But the big question is who pays in this new model. Someone has to review and edit articles. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth of the journal. So do we go back to the "you pay if you want to publish" method (bad idea--only the rich can publish) or will public funds go to public distribution (i.e. the public library model).

Too bad public libraries are often underfunded.

-Geoff

Re:Wonderful news! What's next? by zenyu · 2003-07-01 18:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

But I'm not sure I agree there are "excessive profits" at journals, especially since some of them have recently spent big $$ to digitize and archive old articles--in many cases dating back over a hundred years.

I'm sure my librarians would disagree with you $10,000 or more for a 12 issues of a journal is only possible because libraries buy these things for demanding faculty. There is a huge difference in price between the $50-$100 for a IEEE/ACM journal and one of the commercial journals. I draw the line at reviewing for a journal at $500/yr. The last publisher of $20-30 math books, Springer-Verlag, just got sold to a publisher that wants to maximize profit with no regard for the academic process they are serving. I think it may be time to abandon these old school publishers, I'm sure you could collect enough pre-orders with an electronic edition to get Dover or Eldritch Press to make a print run and mail them out. No one writes these books that sell 200-1000 copies worldwide for profit, it's merely a nicer form than pdf files.
Re:Wonderful news! What's next? by Madcapjack · 2003-07-02 05:24 · Score: 2, Informative

But I'm not sure I agree there are "excessive profits" at journals, especially since some of them have recently spent big $$ to digitize and archive old articles--in many cases dating back over a hundred years. But since many of us are almost exclusively using online access to journals, distribution charges will decrease dramatically.
I'm not so sure that electronic journals have been such a good deal. This article seems to say quite the opposite:
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue2_8/odlyzko/
This article says that profit margins are excessively high (40%) and that a lack of competition in the market does not encourage efficiency of operation. Nor is this the only article that argues something like this.

--
Logic, macros, and more

Re: Exclude from Copyright by ghutchis · 2003-07-01 17:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

That would be my reading of that announcement too. Of course it's the initial proposal, so it'll get all sorts of changes along the way.

No, it's not necessarily a bad thing. There's a whole lot of work that's completely hidden from view that would be opened up to academic research. I can think of several chemistry programs I'd love to get in source form.

But it would be quite interesting to see how they decide to make the cutoff. TCP/IP was government-funded research. Does that mean anything that uses it must be released? (This is why IANAL.)

-Geoff

Bad Idea by zenyu · 2003-07-01 17:23 · Score: 4, Informative

I would totally buy the arguement of not allowing patents on government funded research. But government funding doesn't really compensate graduate students for the work they do and unless they plan on giving the NSF 10x more money and forcing schools to pay their grad students well this just won't fly. I've been on a grad student salary I was $200 in the hole per month before paying for food and clothing, plus there were gaps in the pay, you didn't get paid over winter break, when you were furiously working on a paper, and you didn't get payed for the last month of each school year. You were two months into summer before you got your first paycheck from the internship... The government won't even give you student loans for the shortfall or for health insurance or registration fees. The only blessing is that credit card companies don't seem to have a problem lending a PhD student thousands at 20% (probably a good bet for them...) Doctors & Dentists also give you pretty good repayment terms, but I digress. Considering the economic hit that the students are taking it seems only fair that they keep at least copyright on their work.

I also think people will find ways around this, say you accept government money for two years and accept corporate money for non-exclusive use rights in the last two years.. Well what do you know, you made a lot of progress in that last year...

Re:Bad Idea by Creepy+Crawler · 2003-07-01 17:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

And if you're married, create a legal teergrube for them. Explain all your research to your wife/husband and have them draft and submit a patent. Then attempt to sell a product by Copyrighting all usable names for this product. Seed the idea everywhere you can in newsgroups, mail lists, and chat rooms.

Use all of thse 'weapons' as a self-destructing blackmail. As in, you take this patent away from me, I'll kill the patent by legal kill.

The best way is to have as many in the grad class do this. It'll hurt the pocket dollar of these colleges.
--
- Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
Re:Bad Idea by merdark · 2003-07-01 18:32 · Score: 5, Informative

I agree with you completely, I'm currently a grad student.

Interestingly, in Canada the trend is the opposite. More and more Canadian universities are giving students almost complete IP rights. For instance, my university does this, they only require that they can have eternal free use of whatever I come up with while I'm there. Not a bad deal at all.

Of coures maybe things are different in America? Are grad students in funded exclusivly by the government as they are here? If not I suppose this law may not have as much of an impact. If it is the same, then this could perhaps hurt US academic research community.
Re:Bad Idea by zenyu · 2003-07-01 19:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Of coures maybe things are different in America? Are grad students in funded exclusivly by the government as they are here?

Grad students aren't funded directly. Professors apply for grants in various fields and then pay the university to employ the student at a fixed rate. But the university doesn't care where the money comes from, the university might take a 60% cut for overhead and a cut on any purchases over $300. Where I was the professor also paid a health insurance co-pay for students even though students weren't given health insurance. Professors also get money from industry, Microsoft, IBM, Unilever... but except for Microsoft these are on an entirely different league, a lab might get a few million from the government and a 100k from the other sources. Microsoft gave us money for some patent rights to stuff developed with government money, but the much smaller grants from others were completely unrestricted. They just wanted to visit and have an inside track on hiring graduate students for summer internships. Government money, especially military money, has very few restrictions and is often more than you can spend. The universities don't allow spending this on the students, presumably to avoid the apperance that well funded departments pay better than the pure and social sciences, and the humanities. (Part of the "Contract with America" when the Republicans swept congress was the elimination of government funding for the humanities(NEH), so those departments are funded (badly) out of that 60%+ overhead..The arts funding (NEA) still exists in limited form, but generally this is less relevant as there are large private donors to fund these, and they do not grant many Ph.D's)

As for IP, patents usually belong to the university, but you have the copyright. Some universities take all the money from patents, but most have some give the inventor 50%+ of the royalties. Unfortunately since they own the patent you can't release your code without their permission. Your copyright gives you some leverage, as the patent is less valuable to them without it, but I've yet to ever hear back from legal when I wanted to release anything patented I wrote without a direct cash payment to the university.. A couple of the very best Uni's give you patent rights.. I don't think there is any move toward this. Though I think I might have patented some things if I had been given control of the patent with royalty obligations to the university. As the system is currently you'd be a fool to do it, you won't ever be able to use your own code legally again except at their approval. Well unless you move to some country where the patent doesn't apply.

Salon has some deeper coverage by hassr · 2003-07-01 17:25 · Score: 4, Informative

This article gives a bit more than the press release.

The free research movement

Text of the bill... by pythorlh · 2003-07-01 23:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Is avalaiable asa PDF here.

--
Do not confuse duty with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.Duty is a debt you owe to yourself.

Chiming In . . . by Dausha · 2003-07-02 00:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

I agree with this proposal. If the US Government is paying for the research, they should be able to expect ownership of the IP. Since the USG isn't in the business of IP hoarding, then they instead have it released into the Public Domain.

The research does not have to be federally funded. So, if this condition is too much for the research team, then perhaps they should seek alternate funding. Then the altruism of the doner may allow the research team to keep the IP.

--
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.

Next on the list.... by hotarugari · 2003-07-02 01:24 · Score: 2

Next they should retroactively make make government sponsered organizations (cough, monopolies, cough) open source (ie Bell Labs, various power companies, ICANN, yada, yada).

Departure from FootInDoor by 4of12 · 2003-07-02 01:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's interesting that they're providing full public access to new technology without requiring NDA's and licensing fees.

This is good public policy, one that will advance overall progress faster than if restrictions were in place.

Logically, the government doesn't (or shouldn't) need monetary incentives to create new inventions in the same way that individuals do; they already have the ability to reap tax revenue from a wide field at will.

By making their IP free, the government thereby lowers barriers to entry for anyone that wants to build upon the technology. As a result, society at large will benefit from more frequent and competitive introductions of inventions built on top of government-developed IP. The field of possible new inventors isn't restricted to those with both intelligence and money; it's enough to be intelligent.

Interestingly, release of software developed under U.S. government funding usually is required to contain a proviso like:

there is a non-exclusive license for use of this work by or on behalf of the U.S. Government.

and the usual disclaimer of no warranty.

In some cases software has been licensed for a fee to outside entites and in other cases it has been released freely under the various flavors of GPL, BSD, etc.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."

Re:copyrights not patents by zenyu · 2003-07-02 05:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I would be extreemly rare for any researcher to make much money by retaining the copyright to federally funded research. Maybe if somebody wrote a "thesis of the year" but most academic research books make little money for their authors.

In computer science the code can bew very valuable. The papers are too, but here it is more important that your name be attached to it than any other aspect of copyright be ahered to. Often we sign our copyright away to a reputable member organization such as the ACM, while retaining distribution rights to our own papers. You gain from this from a legal standpoint in the common instance of multiple author papers.

I know the patent issue wasn't mentioned, but I still think I'd much rather give up the patents, which are mostly a hinderance, than give up the copyright which actually can be useful. I'd also be glad to give up the exclusive copying privledge of copyright after say five years, if I could retain the right to say "this paper must be copied in it's entirety if need to excerpt more than say 30% of the paper and the original paper must be referenced if you use more than 10% of it and it constitutes a significant part of your work." Academic principles would be stricter than this anyway, but this would allow me to go after true scalawags. Copyright lengths themselves are insane, I have no financial interest after 2-3 years in even the code, it's evolved greatly or I've dropped that pursuit by then, and I have no financial interest in papers what so ever. I can't for the life of me see why I need copyright protection in the grave either, for me a term of five years whether I'm dead or alive is more than enough for publishers to feel comfortable making a book, and a right to have my name attached to significant derivative works would be nice (though it won't motivate or dismotivate me any either way, plagarism is usually caught in the peer review process.) Honestly three years of copyright would be plenty good motivation in our field, but as an author I prefer more, but I also see great harm in making it more than five years. On the other hand I think five years for fiction books would be the minimum and ten years a good compromise in length. I don't see much harm in even a twenty year copyright in the developed world, but there is with anything more than ten in the developing world.

I don't think copyright is the right tool for music or software binaries. Here a compulsary licensing scheme would work much better than leaving the copying policies in the hands of the "creators." In music there are so few tunes you can actually make in the 12 note system that the copyright act more like patents. Software binaries are not written to be understood so don't really qualify as creative works, but the still require protection so that their software development can be compensated. I'm not sure what the right thing is, but the courts should not have made law and turned them into creative works. I'm sure the legislative system, as broken as it is, would have come up with something better.

17 of 33 comments (clear)