n Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:29:13 -0700 "deFreese, Barry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you folks seen this "debate"? > > http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/02/10/23/1247236.shtml?tid=4 Yes, I did. However, I fail to understand why federally funded projects should be allowed to be privately licensed. A federally funded project is by definition paid for by the tax payers (aka general public). IMHO, something paid for by the general public should be licensed in a manner that ensures it remains accessible to the public. I understand the concept of the BSD style license(s) (I think), but fail to see why it would be acceptable as a license for anything federally funded. With a BSD style license, anyone is free to take the result (at any stage) and create a closed (possibly enhanced) proprietary implementation. Why should this be allowed for something paid for by the public's tax dollars? The public has already paid for a good portion (if not all) of the item through federal funding. Now it can be incorporated into a proprietary application and the public winds up paying for it twice? While some see the GPL's requirement, that any enhancements/changes be released if the modified version is distributed, as restrictive. It is for this precise reason that it is well suited for licensing federally funded projects. It ensures that the results of such projects remain public. If someone wants to create a proprietary implementation, they are free to do so. They can re-implement the solution their way and license as they see fit. However, I don't feel they should be given a handout/kick-start from a publicly funded project. -- Jamin W. Collins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
