Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:26:12 -0800
From: Bob Leif
To: Tom Moran et al.
Thank you for the reference, The relevant quote is:
Go ahead and write software under the GPL if you want, Allchin said. But
don't let that happen with publicly funded software projects, such as the
work done at major research universities. It's fine to let that kind of work
take place under licenses that put the research software into the public
domain, he said, but don't constrain developers from using it to create
proprietary software. The GPL is a deterrent to private innovation, he
said -- a wrecker of intellectual property.
I totally agree with Allchin. In fact, the most interesting part of this to
me as an exacademic, is that the GPL is a significant threat to the jobs of
the university administrators who are in charge of commercializing
intellectual property. If the faculty uses the GPL, the administrators can
become redundant. In fact, I am shocked that any university administration
would not claim rights to this important intellectual property (software)
produced by their faculty. I might note that if the administrators were
smart enough to see the value of software, they might also insist that it be
produced in a competent manner. The use of Ada could help their bottom line.
From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Tom Moran
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 1:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: microsoft lobbies gov't to control open source!
Interesting followup on Allchin's statement in Dan Gillmor's column in
the SJ Mercury News today
Apparently Allchin was talking about government/university funded
programs being GPLed so they couldn't be enhanced commercially. I'd
certainly object if my taxpayer dollars paid for something whose
copyright said "To use this, you must, once a day, salute and say
'George Bush is a genius'" (to pick an unlikely example).