On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 02:01:09AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > Yes, that was my reading to. However, having read through all 20 pages > > (!!) of their license file, it seems clear that their intentions are > > good, and that their main concern is that the source code is kept open > > and free, though they are clumsy in the execution of that. CCLRC is a > > I have seen some opposition from scientists to free software, because > > * they are not opposed to commercial use, but separate commercial use > and free use: when there is profit done they must be some money back, > and this goes against unrestricted use clause of free software. > > * they are opposed to forks and free redistribution, they want to be > acknowledged for the work and also keep control on it. That also goes > against free software. > I agree with this, but its sometimes more complicated than just a money/power hungry scientist looking for control - alot of this tends to be decided by University technology transfer programs, for which Richard Stallman dedicated an entire "howto": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html This is further complicated by funding for the research and any rules it imposes, the U.S. Bayh-Dole act (USC Title 35, Part II, Chap. 18, Sec. 200) which makes it an "objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development," and so on. Never mind the fact that most of us don't even know the difference between the GPL, the LGPL, BSD, MIT, etc... Anyway, I'll do my best to fight the good fight. Besides, I think we're preaching to the choir on this list. ;) Regards, Tim -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
