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. -----Original Message----- 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 http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/business/docs/gillmor21.htm 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).