I was reading this article, http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com/wordpress/2011/04/disrupting-centralized-linear-university-model/, on university IP policies and how they might evolve for open source/hardware/content/etc considerations in the future.
I don't know how that article looks to an academic - I'd be interested in hearing how it sounds from the trenches - but it links to Stanford's policy... which makes *sense* to me. I'm stunned. I've never been able to understand anything from a tech transfer office before! http://otl.stanford.edu/inventors/resources/inventors_opensource.html It even asks "What are you hoping to achieve?" * broad adoption in the academic community? * is your code synergistic with widely open sourced applications like Linux? * broad adoption in industry? * continued development by others? Heck, I don't know if most developers and *companies* think this through properly when they consider open-sourcing their work. Wow. Breath of fresh air. Idealistic? I know a few profs here have been encountering some IP discussions with their school lately about licensing/commercialization/etc of open source student work, and I'm curious whether this helps, or whether these are all great ideas y'all already know about but the battle to implement them somewhere else is just really hard and long and slow. --Mel _______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
