On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:18 AM, John Culp <[email protected]> wrote:
> Timothy Normand Miller wrote: > > > > >> SHOULD I let NYS own this? >> >> > Short answer: yes > > I think you should do what is best for your career. Neglecting what has > already been created, what you create going forward (apparently) is _your_ > ip and nobody has any title over that unless you choose to utilize the > university resources. Looking over Binghamton's website leads me to > believe that they are trying to build up research programs. I don't know > what opportunities exist or CAN exist if you develop that IP under the > umbrella of the university. Ga Tech has enormous resources for > commercializing ideas in a variety of ways; you should have some of the > same there. If you can pick up the phone and talk to a patent lawyer paid > by the university _that really means something_. Yeah you say the state > takes 60%, but look at the risks they take, and look at the risks that you > no longer personally take. > > What kind of asset do you want to be to your new university home? Do you > want to help them build a program as part of a long lasting institution, or > are you just passing through? I'd bet that the choices you make now will > be remembered when you come up for tenure. I'm really starting to lean in this direction. Using BU resources and students will put more work into this directly under my leadership (as opposed to herding cats). My original concern was that past contributors would complain and future contributors would dry up if they knew that 60% of the money would get sucked away. But 60% of what? This is all speculation. And the fact is, this is all entirely new IP. Maybe bits and pieces of older stuff will get pulled in, but I do own the rights to do that, and BU and NYS will know what the boundaries are (they'll get a copy of all the old stuff), in case they even matter. If NYS does take 60%, people will really have very little room to complain, given that I'm going to declare right now that handing it over to BU is an option I will always consider to be open to me. > > > > I could probably license this under BSD or MIT, and no one in NYS would >> raise an eyebrow. It it would prevent _us_ from getting any revenue; >> meanwhile, Apple could plop it into the iPhone 12 and make billions. I >> don't like that. I'm doing this for research purposes so that academics >> can have an easier time developing new GPU-related techologies, not so >> that >> some money-grubbing corporation can just lift our IP. >> > > #1 What you create going forward is going to be basically all yours; > certainly given your copyright assignment. Perhaps you want the publicity > of a/the 'project' which good for the school and you. I certainly don't > have any problem with that. I cannot fathom any random mailing list dude > having any serious form of title or say in the usage of any funding that > you get from what you will develop. You can maintain your stated academic > goals by releasing in GPL with the copyright owned by the university. > > #2 Just how many people on the mailing list are going to labor to develop > then assign copyright of contributed code to you personally? Certainly not > I, though I wish you no ill will. I don't care anything about revenue. I > read and post to the list as I suspect most others do for general interest. > As an aside, I am going to finish my tvc sort of as I described it some > months ago (under the public domain) purely for that same general interest. > > #3 Just what sort of revenue stream are you expecting (don't answer)? I > punch 3d graphics core into google and I get dozens of hits. The Intels, > googles and apples of the world have zero trouble getting anything they > need. Is selling a single license to somebody as an individual worth not > building a stronger relationship where you are? > Yeah. I have to consider just how much FOSS contribution I'm going to get. The simulator is WAY more accessible, and this IP issue doesn't even apply there. Most people will look at the Verilog code out of vague but distant interest but have no ability to contribute. I'll get way more help from my students, and if THEY contribute, I have no choice but to let SUNY own it. > > #4 Are you sure that the GPU as classically imagined and discussed on this > list is interesting to CS research folks; in other words have people moved > on? Are you so sure that grossly brute force (but easy to use) solutions > like the Xeon phi are not going to 'win'? I'll allow that in the deep > embedded world probably not. > Good point. > > Basically I'm arguing that _if_ you keep it totally internal with an > external GPL license, you loose little to no proficient collaborators, you > gain the ability to build your relationship with your university, you gain > access to the assets that the university can provide, you take fewer > personal risks, and you maintain your stated academic goals. If you then > license the design to some random outfit the hardware is already > conveniently documented to open software standards and there may be a bit > of community developed (L)GPL software floating around that can talk to it. > Certainly keep the mailing list going as a discussion place and for > community access. Heck if other people on the mailing list want to scratch > an itch and develop hardware that integrates with something you have > designed, they can, under the GPL. > The first goal is the simulator anyway, and that's pure GPL. And basically, I agree with everything you said. I'll let others comment on this before I leap to a decision that I can't undo. Just in case we haven't thought of something important. BTW, you're mirroring what my wife already suggested. (And she is a lawyer.) > > Kinda mini rant: > > This is _way_ outside of my field, but as I stare into my crystal ball, > all of this foss graphics driver bs is going to go away over the next 5-10 > years regardless of what you choose to do. I think that amd, intel, and > nvidia are all moving to have their parallel processing elements able to > work in the same address space as your program. Basically you will make a > function call in your own address space, protected by the mmu and you > access all the power of the 'gpu' elements for general computing (that use > their own local fast memory, but mapped into your address space). I > believe this means that programming of the elements is going to be > completely documented. For intel, that job is 'easy' for the Xeon phi. > After that point, composing a display is just blending memory buffers > together, exactly what the wayland people are talking about. Mesa would > turn back into what it was originally, a software rendering library -> I > think that mesa + LLVM are effectively the first steps in that direction. > > Yeah, I realize that some custom or optimized bit of hardware may be able > to to it x% faster with y% less power, but hey vhs beat betamax and odds > are we are mostly looking at x86 machines. So basically, the GPU is a moving target anyway. We should focus on meeting current scientific needs, publish lots of results, and then use our clout from this to get more funding to chase whatever the GPU evolves into next. Eh? > > > -John > > -- > John R. Culp > [email protected] > ______________________________**_________________ > Open-graphics mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.duskglow.com/**mailman/listinfo/open-graphics<http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics> > List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com) > -- Timothy Normand Miller, PhD Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Binghamton University http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~millerti/<http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti> Open Graphics Project
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
