[om-list] Public Money, Private Code

[Tom and other Packers]

Mark

    (In case my dad has time to get into one of our discussions, I'm
actually sending him an email.  I'm not sure why I haven't in the past.  If
he's too busy, then he doesn't need to comment.

    But to get him up to speed, we're discussing the opposing philosophies
in the computer/software world, which differ in their desire to make things
proprietary.  One could be characterised as the traditional university
mentality which wants to make all software free and modifiable and re-usable
by anyone; the other could be called the traditional business mentality
which wants to make all software proprietary, and *owned* and sellable or
licensable by a small number of entities.  Most people I know, like Lee H,
Mark B, Luke C, Cameron Matheson, and Ben Oman, etc., like open-source, the
former philosophy which promotes a lot of valuable development by many
people who are not worried about making money on what they produce.)


    It takes me time to generate ideas on a new topic, but I'm starting to
develop an opinion about this topic, specifically the Bayh-Dole act and
government funded developments.

    Point one:  The simple perspective, that any product produced from
publicly-funded research should be open-sourced, would eliminate the SBIR
(small business innovated research) grant program, which is a big program
for helping small businesses get off the ground using grants from various
government agencies.  I think SBIR is a good thing.  In fact, I'm thinking
of making use of it some day.

    Point two:  (Enlargement of point one):  There's a reason (a principle
behind why) the government gives away money to help small businesses: (1) it
helps the business (get started), (2) it helps the government (produce a new
tax-paying entity), and (3) it helps the general population (who need or
want the product of the new business -- it's the third phase of this
three-phase SBIR grant, along with qualifications for the first two phases,
that require the small business to somehow indicate a high potential for
producing something marketable).  If the principle holds for the SBIR grant
program, who's to say that it cannot hold for other public funding -- even
*all* public funding?

    Point three:  (point two extended to universities):  If universities can
gain royalties from the research they foster, then we have just created a
very real-world type of criterion/mechanism promoting the survival of good
universities: those who produce good, marketable work will get more money,
and will survive to propagate their species.  I would think that this could
mean that a good university would be less tied to government and public
money, less dependent on money that carries no wise decision-making power.
I'm not saying markets are "wise", but there's a good chance that markets
are more practical, or street-wise than the government, (especially in the
case of the arts, and all the silly funding we've seen for trash and kitch
and "modern art").

    I think the government these days tends to support a disease which
universities are already too widely infected with, and that is
multiculturalism.  They support activities in the name of diversity, which
is often contrary to the stability of conservatism and contrary to the
healthy growth found in enterprises motivated by real improvement needs.
So, if the government were willing to let universities act more like
privately owned corporations, ... ?

    So, I guess I'm saying that I sort of lean toward the spirit in
Bayh-Dole.

    I think there's a philosophy that says that, in a system where
compensation is more directly tied to the products it supports, the system
will be more healthy and coherent and integrated, over-all, and in the long
run.  I think Mark was trying to apply this philosophy to his ISP business,
so I imagine he will agree with this to some degree.

    Comments?

    Should I develop this idea more fully and submit it to one of these
on-line discussions Mark has pointed us to?

tomp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Butler" <butlerm at middle.net>
To: "One Model List" <om-list at onemodel.org>
Sent: Friday, 04 January, 2002 09:36
Subject: [om-list] Public Money, Private Code


The following article is a great summary of the current state of
intellectual property treatment in universities:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/04/university_open_source/index.ht
ml?x

Personally, I think the Bayh-Dole act was a mistake. Publicly funded
research should be released into the public domain.

- Mark

_______________________________________________
om-list mailing list
om-list at onemodel.org
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/om-list