MESSAGE
DATE | 2005-03-22 |
FROM | Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS
|
SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] [mbmiller@taxa.epi.umn.edu: GNU GPL and NIH/NSF software and publications - a thought
|
Hello Ruben--
Richard Stallman thought I had some potentially useful ideas and he recommended that I contact you. See our correspondence below.
As you will see, RMS didn't like my use of the terms "open" and "closed" in reference to source code, so I am changing my ways. I'm just learning some of his ideas. It will take a little while before I feel like I've really mastered the philosophy and some of the legal issues. In the meantime, I thought I'd write to you now in case you are interested in some of my ideas and plans.
Best,
Mike
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:32:49 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Miller To: Richard Stallman Cc: MLUG membership Subject: GNU GPL and NIH/NSF software and publications - a thought
Richard--
I am interested in doing something about National Institutes of Health (NIH) or National Science Foundation (NSF) rules on licensing of code developed using their funds. They must have some policies but I have not been able to find them. I'll probably have to make some calls. Apparently, the current system allows developers to take NIH or NSF funds and keep the software source closed - distributing binaries only. For example, I know that a genetic analysis program called SOLAR is closed source and it is supported by NIH funds:
http://www.sfbr.org/solar/2.1.4.doc/02.chapter.html "The SOLAR project is supported by the NIH."
Another example is S.A.G.E.:
http://darwin.cwru.edu/ Non-Profit Organizations can purchase S.A.G.E. for free.
My feeling is that both NIH and NSF should require that all software developed partly using their funds be distributed under the GNU GPL. As it stands, software may be developed using NIH money, but the source can remain closed and an individual or university can own the rights. This should not be acceptable.
A different license with the same requirements might work just as well ast the GPL, but I see no need at this time to develop something new when the GPL works so well. It is very widely used (tens of thousands of programs) and very well-established.
I think this idea might actually get somewhere at this time because I think it might be able to piggy-back onto the movement to require that every published report of NIH-funded research be freely publicly accessible on the internet. Nobelist Harold Varmus, former Director of NIH and founder of PLoS...
http://www.plos.org/
...has been one of the major players pushing this forward. You can read a few articles about the movement here:
http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/cgi-bin/webglimpse/rmnews?query=nih%3Baccess&maxlines=0
Several congressmen and senators have gotten behind it. It is very popular with citizens. Picture this: You have cancer, you do a web search to find treatment information, you find some great information that directs you to some recently-published articles, you go to the journal web page to look at those articles and they try to charge you $25 apiece! This makes you angry because the research was paid for by your tax dollars, but now you can't use the results without paying again! This does piss people off and it seems like a good cause for politicians to get behind - helping sick people to get the information they have already paid for. What's not to like?
I think that many of the same ideas apply to software. If the NIH or NSF is paying for the code, why should the code be unavailable to citizens and owned by an individual or university? The code should be freely accessible by anyone -- at least by other NIH researchers. It is in everyone's best interest if the code can be enhanced and improved by interested programmers. The GNU GPL is just the sort of thing we need -- it would encourage further development and it would allow us to see exactly what the software is doing for us. It is harder to trust a program when you can't see the code.
I think this is worth pursuing. What do you think? If it succeeds, it could be a major boost for the GNU GPL. Even if it fails, if it gives you more opportunity to present your case in the news or to important people (e.g., NIH big wigs or congressmen), it will be worth it.
Thanks for reading my message.
Regards,
Mike
-- Michael B. Miller, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Division of Epidemiology and Community Health and Institute of Human Genetics University of Minnesota http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:34:39 -0500 From: Richard Stallman To: Mike Miller Cc: members-at-mlug.missouri.edu Subject: Re: GNU GPL and NIH/NSF software and publications - a thought
My feeling is that both NIH and NSF should require that all software developed partly using their funds be distributed under the GNU GPL.
I could support such a campaign. However, could we avoid using terms such as "open" and "closed", as used here?
Apparently, the current system allows developers to take NIH or NSF funds and keep the software source closed
Using those terms promotes the open source ideas at the expense of the ideas of free software. If I joined in that, I'd be undermining my own primary work. There's no need to do that.
I think that many of the same ideas apply to software. If the NIH or NSF is paying for the code, why should the code be unavailable to citizens and owned by an individual or university?
This argument, which I agree with, is based on ideas of freedom and justice. It argues that some programs ethically must be free. It heads in the direction of the free software movement, whose basic ideas are a matter of freedom and justice.
The open source philosophy was formulated as a reaction against the free software movement. It rejects the idea of looking at the issue as a difference between right and wrong. It claims only that letting users participate in development leads to better software. Those ideas can't support the argument you're trying to make.
So would you please help make the free software movement remain visible, and escape from being hidden behind the open source philosophy? Simply using terms "free" and "proprietary", not the other group's "open" and "closed", will help us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:26:44 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Miller To: Richard Stallman Cc: members-at-mlug.missouri.edu Bcc: mbmiller-at-gmail.com Subject: Re: GNU GPL and NIH/NSF software and publications - a thought
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Richard Stallman wrote:
> My feeling is that both NIH and NSF should require that all software > developed partly using their funds be distributed under the GNU GPL. > >I could support such a campaign. However, could we avoid using terms >such as "open" and "closed", as used here?
Yes. I'm just learning the terminology -- who developed what, why certain terms are preferred.
> I think that many of the same ideas apply to software. If the NIH or NSF > is paying for the code, why should the code be unavailable to citizens > and > owned by an individual or university? > >This argument, which I agree with, is based on ideas of freedom and >justice. It argues that some programs ethically must be free. It heads >in the direction of the free software movement, whose basic ideas are a >matter of freedom and justice.
I like your ideas.
>So would you please help make the free software movement remain visible, >and escape from being hidden behind the open source philosophy? Simply >using terms "free" and "proprietary", not the other group's "open" and >"closed", will help us.
Sure. I'll read your books and papers and those of other people until I understand the various licenses and concepts. I think this stuff is very important and we will all benefit by greater freedom of code. It will take a few weeks before I get through all the reading material!
I will also start contacting people at NIH and NSF so that I can find out what their current rules are. It looks like my own Congressman Martin Sabo was behind some of the open access legislation a few years ago, so I'll try to talk to him about it.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:45:16 -0500 From: Richard Stallman To: Mike Miller Subject: Re: GNU GPL and NIH/NSF software and publications - a thought
I will also start contacting people at NIH and NSF so that I can find out what their current rules are. It looks like my own Congressman Martin Sabo was behind some of the open access legislation a few years ago, so I'll try to talk to him about it.
ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com might be able to offer you good advice about this.
-- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://fairuse.nylxs.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
____________________________ NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene Fair Use - because it's either fair use or useless.... NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|