[linux-elitists] California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001

Bulent Murtezaoglu bm@acm.org
Sun Jul 1 12:01:34 PDT 2001

>>>>> "Bad" == Bad  <mr.bad@pigdog.org> writes:

    Bad> OK, so, I've been thinking that it'd be a good idea to get
    Bad> the drop on Microsoft if and when they propose to stop GPL'd
    Bad> output of publicly-funded research.

Fine idea.

    Bad>         * it's only fair that taxpayer-funded research be
    Bad> made openly available to all individuals and businesses

Note that this may offend more people than you intend.  Scientific 
papers usually end up in journals, and neither access nor copying
is as simple as anonymous http or ftp.  GPL does not prohibit charging
for distribution, but AFAIK it does prohibit the prohibition of
re-distribution.  Scientific publishers would not be happy about this.

    Bad>         * research must be kept open, and not slightly
    Bad> modified and locked up

I'd love to see this qualified by a lawyer to achieve what you mean.
As stated, it is too broad.  EG: I cannot design and manufacture a 
gadget by implementing some ideas from publicly-funded research 
and keep any additional cleverness I come up with as a trade secret.

IMHO this will be hard to restrict to programming, and the BSD folks
(and possibly UC Berkeley) will come out against it.

The possible MS argument is much easier to state and sell: the GPL 
effectively prohibits a certain industry from using the fruits 
of publicly-funded research.  

Just my initial thoughts.



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list