[declan <at> well.com: FC: SiliconValley.com hosts roundtable on free software, shared source]

A late heads up on this.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself <at> ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
   Are these opinions my employer's?  Hah!  I don't believe them myself!

From: Declan McCullagh <declan <at> well.com>
Subject: FC: SiliconValley.com hosts roundtable on free software, shared source
Date: 2001-06-28 14:44:57 GMT

---

From: "Paczkowski, John" <JPaczkowski <at> knightridder.com>
To: "'declan <at> well.com'" <declan <at> well.com>
Subject: free software /shared source debate continues
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 09:51:36 -0400

'morning declan:

thought i'd send you a quick heads up to an online panel discussion we're
currently hosting. microsoft's craig mundie, hp's bruce perens, and others
are debating shared source and free software all week on sv.com. the

California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001

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

The idea is to draft a California Copyleft Research Initiative of
2001, which requires ALL state-funded research be put under some
sort of copyleft license to preserve its freedom. The reasons are
apparent to anyone on this list, but could easily be enumerated:

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

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

The reason to do an initiative rather than, say, lobby legislators, is
that a grass-roots movement and a petition drive could actually garner
media attention and support of the public. Legislators would
completely ignore a bunch of wild-haired geeks without deep pockets.

It'd be cool to do it on a nationwide level, but sadly our federal
government doesn't have a direct democratic mechanism like initiatives
and propositions.

It'd be great to get an act like this actually passed. However, the
most important thing is to identify "copyleft" with "fair", "open" and
"good" to the public eye. I think if we get this spread out to LUGs in
CA and try to encourage people to do public petition drives (even for
a couple of days), we could get great visibility and media attention.

California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001

>>>>> "Bad" == Bad  <mr.bad <at> 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 

Re: California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001

> OK, so, I've been thinking that it'd be a good idea to get the drop on
> Microsoft if and when they propose to stop GPL'd output of
> publicly-funded research.
> 
> The idea is to draft a California Copyleft Research Initiative of
> 2001, which requires ALL state-funded research be put under some
> sort of copyleft license to preserve its freedom. The reasons are
> apparent to anyone on this list, but could easily be enumerated:
> 
>         * it's only fair that taxpayer-funded research be made openly
>           available to all individuals and businesses
> 
>         * research must be kept open, and not slightly modified and
>           locked up
> 
> The reason to do an initiative rather than, say, lobby legislators, is
> that a grass-roots movement and a petition drive could actually garner
> media attention and support of the public. Legislators would
> completely ignore a bunch of wild-haired geeks without deep pockets.
> 
> It'd be cool to do it on a nationwide level, but sadly our federal
> government doesn't have a direct democratic mechanism like initiatives
> and propositions.

No, but citizens in each state can develop an individual campaign to lobby
their Reps and Senators to support a bill with the features.  If the
campaign organizers stay in contact with each other, I think they call that
a PAC...

> It'd be great to get an act like this actually passed. However, the

Re: California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001

On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:

>     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.

But is this a bad thing?  Scientific publishers should not be able to
derive profits (in an economic sense of the word) from the activity of
distribution, which itself could be done for a fraction of the cost
via the network.  Their profits should come from their value added,
which is merely the service of vetting and approving submissions for
(supposed) quality.  And this they could still do.  George Gilder,
e.g., "publishes" his periodical reports online (as well as paper) and
does quite well because his value add is not the paper and glue, but
the research that goes into 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.  

You're right that it's easier to state, and and I think you've nailed
pretty much what it's going to be.  The problem is that it's only easy
to sell because it is an UTTER LIE.  Perhaps in the Redmondian Bizarro
world there's actually someone who believes this claptrap, but the
reality is that the GPL does NOT prevent ANYONE from using the fruits

Re: California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001

>>>>> "BM" == Bulent Murtezaoglu <bm <at> acm.org> writes:

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

So maybe change the copyleft requirement to "public domain."

Actually, that'd possibly be better. Since Microsoft seems hip on the
public domain, ALL RESEARCH must go public domain. Getting an early
start means that we can take Microsoft execs words and apply them to a
new idea: all research must be public domain.

When/if they come out with another proposal just limiting copylefted
code to the public domain, well, they will look like they're
supporting the California Public Domain Research Initiative.

Which, hey, good for us either way.

Beaujolais!

~Mr. Bad

--

-- 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Mr. Bad <mr.bad <at> pigdog.org> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ 
 "Your description of coffee is how you interpret Sex."
                              -- "Personality Quiz" chain letter
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001

>>>>> "H" == Heather  <star <at> betelgeuse.starshine.org> writes:

    H> No, but citizens in each state can develop an individual
    H> campaign to lobby their Reps and Senators to support a bill
    H> with the features.  If the campaign organizers stay in contact
    H> with each other, I think they call that a PAC...

The problem is that it's too slow a process, and it lacks any public
visibility. The main problem here is a media perception one, and not a
legal one.

    H> "fair" unless defined, is merely pleasant buzz.

Well, DUH. The whole point here is to lay down groundwork for public
opinion -- that "fair" == "copyleft" and not "unfair" == "copyleft."

    H> (warped thoughts of the software piracy checkers being sent in
    H> to take away your research manuals because you are being flaky
    H> on your taxes, so you are losing your license to them until you
    H> pay up.)

I love it!

    H> Why don't you ask the FSF and EFF if they could get behind it?

I doubt they would. Again, folks, the primary idea here is -not-
repeat -not- to get this initiative passed. Oppositely, it's a
guerrilla media attack to preempt suggestions that information freedom
in research is somehow "unfair to business." Quite the contrary,
preventing freedom in research is unfair to everybody -- individuals

Re: California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001

Mr . Bad writes:

> >>>>> "BM" == Bulent Murtezaoglu <bm <at> acm.org> writes:
> 
>     BM> The possible MS argument is much easier to state and sell: the
>     BM> GPL effectively prohibits a certain industry from using the
>     BM> fruits of publicly-funded research.
> 
> So maybe change the copyleft requirement to "public domain."
> 
> Actually, that'd possibly be better. Since Microsoft seems hip on the
> public domain, ALL RESEARCH must go public domain. Getting an early
> start means that we can take Microsoft execs words and apply them to a
> new idea: all research must be public domain.

Just copyrights or also patents?

I can think of some patent interests and business interests that would
be pretty scared of this.  It is a pretty fundamental shift from what
some corners of universities have been doing since after World War II.

Is this "all government-funded research" or "all research in
government-funded institutions"?

--

-- 
Seth David Schoen <schoen <at> loyalty.org>  | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/  | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)  | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5

Re: California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001

>>>>> "RW" == Ryan Waldron <rew <at> erebor.com> writes:

    BM> ... prohibit the prohibition of re-distribution.  Scientific
    BM> publishers would not be happy about this.

    RW> But is this a bad thing?  

No I personally don't think loosening up restrictions on access to
research is a bad thing.  But when one's thinking about getting 
the government to do something, I think one ought to consider who'll 
be hurt by this for political and maybe moral reasons.  If I were a 
scientific publisher I'd be pissed, and IMHO rightly so, since at the 
stroke of a pen the goverment will kill my business.  

    RW> Scientific publishers should not be
    RW> able to derive profits (in an economic sense of the word) from
    RW> the activity of distribution, which itself could be done for a
    RW> fraction of the cost via the network.  

Yes, but it was not always so.  I think scientific publishing will die
off slowly because both the logistics of refereeing and distribution
are becoming much easier.  The issue is whether they should be killed
by gov't action.

    RW> Their profits should
    RW> come from their value added, which is merely the service of
    RW> vetting and approving submissions for (supposed) quality.  And
    RW> this they could still do.  

How would they collect money to pay their staff?  I think what will

Re: California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001

>>>>> "Bad" == Bad  <mr.bad <at> pigdog.org> writes:
    BM> The possible MS argument is much easier to state and sell: the
    BM> GPL effectively prohibits a certain industry from using the
    BM> fruits of publicly-funded research.

    Bad> So maybe change the copyleft requirement to "public domain."

No, I don't think so.

    Bad> Actually, that'd possibly be better. Since Microsoft seems
    Bad> hip on the public domain, ALL RESEARCH must go public
    Bad> domain. 

Microsoft is hip on public domain because it suits them perfectly.
If the Linux kernel was in the public domain, we could see a duly
embraced extended and closed MS-Linux.  They don't like the 
GPL because they cannot touch the codebase.

    Bad> Getting an early start means that we can take
    Bad> Microsoft execs words and apply them to a new idea: all
    Bad> research must be public domain. [...]

Which they would support to kill GPL'ed work coming from graduate 
students.  Let's not do that.

cheers,

BM