Subject: Re: A few here may have an opinion on this
From: chrismaeda@attbi.com
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:10:07 +0000

An interesting followup question is what do you
think of govt funding proprietary software research?
Examples of this are the SBIR program and the ATP
at the Dept of Commerce.  Govt funds research, takes
a royalty free license for the federal govt, and allows
the grantee to retain all other rights.  Govt does not
take an equity interest in the grantee company.  

This may sound like corporate welfare, but it can 
generate huge amounts of tax revenue on the back end 
if the research is successful.  I don't believe govt 
should skew these programs in favor of open source 
until open source has done a better job of validating 
itself as a class of highly profitable business models.

-Chris
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Benjamin J. Tilly  wrote:
> > http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/02/10/23/1247236.shtml?tid=4
> >
> > A Washington State senator is trying to make it government
> > policy to not support research that produces GPLed
> > software because the GPL is a license that "would prevent
> > or discourage commercial adoption" of technologies.
> >
> > Yeah, right.
> 
> Everyone knows my biases, but I think there's a pretty reasonable point
> here.  A "university" license would, in my opinion, be the most
> appropriate license for government-funded software to be released under.
> Simply by virtue of being compatible with all other existing licenses,
> Open Source or not, it makes the software more widely usable, and thus
> more valuable to society as a whole.  Since a properly-formed university
> license is compatible with the GPL, it would also not prevent government
> funds from going to funds that are based on GPL software, for example the
> Linux kernel.  If I were a senator I'd be tempted to sign onto such
> legislation.  I'd look very closely, though, for any easter eggs left by
> software vendors from Washington State.
> 
> 	Brian
>