Subject: Re: A few here may have an opinion on this
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:50:53 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Don Marti wrote:
> begin Brian Behlendorf quotation of Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:08:53AM -0700:
>
> > 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.
>
> When you combine
>
>  1. a requirement for publicly funded work to use a non-copyleft license,
>  2. the patentablity of software, and
>  3. Bayh-Dole and "technology transfer" programs at universities and
>     other institutions
>
> the "no copyleft" requirement becomes, in effect, an "all
> government-funded software _must_ become proprietary" requirement.
>
> Get rid of items 2 and 3, and item 1 would work.

I definitely agree that item 3 needs to go, I don't know though if
item 3 precludes releasing BSD-licensed code.  However, doesn't item 1
work even if item 2 exists?  I take it you're concerned about third
parties who own patents on ideas implemented by code built with government
funds - in that scenario, how does the license on the govt-funded code
matter?  Is there another scenario?

	Brian