murthy@alsvid.cs.cornell.edu (Chet Murthy) (12/15/89)
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >Macsyma. >The queueing system (MQS? can't remember the acronym). >Matlab. >Not to say that the "evil software hoarders" that sell or distribute >these fine software packages aren't selling useful things, or that >each of these fits the bill exactly; but in each case there's a >core of free stuff wrapped with a thicket of copyright. University Ingres --chet-- murthy@cs.cornell.edu
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (12/16/89)
steve@txsil.lonestar.org (Steve McConnel) writes: >In article <6672@columbia.edu> kearns@cs.columbia.edu writes: >>Does anyone know the facts about Scribe? >>My recollections, which are shaky at best, say that Brian Reed wrote >>Scribe, only to have it usurped by an evil company. >>I would like to know the story in greater detail, if anyone recalls it. >> >>-steve >Brian K. Reid wrote Scribe while a CS grad student at Carnegie-Mellon. >(I was a EE grad student at the time, and still have a copy of the second >edition of the Scribe User's Manual, dated 25 July 1979, for Scribe version >2A(400).) Someone convinced Brian of the commercial potential of the program, >and he sold all commercial rights to a company which I think was formed for >the purpose of selling Scribe and related software. There was a big hassle >for awhile with C-MU trying to claim ownership and therefore collect all the >profits, but as i recall, the final decision was that, as a grad student, >Brian indeed had the rights to Scribe and could sell the program and collect >the profits if he wished. We can just ASK Brian, of course [reid@decwrl.dec.com ought to do, I'd guess], but the twist on this was that Brian did scribe *as* his doctoral dissertation project [speaking of self-referential efforts]. It is often the case that schools retain interests in stuff developed "on their behalf" in exchange for a degree [isn't that the old story about Land --- he had to *refuse* his degree at Harvard or else _they_ would have claimed ownership or license or some such in his work [I think that round was his polarizing material]], so things are not always as clear cut as they seem... in fact, in some ways I'm surprised that he *did* get CMU to let him retain the rights.... >Whether it was a *good* thing for Scribe to go >commercial or not is another question, but it certainly wasn't a case of an >Evil Corporation usurping a helpless programmer. Partly... Brian has commented that he got screwed [e.g., when they charged *him* $8K for the next version or some such...:-)]... but athat was more a matter that he needed a better lawyer than that he was trampled. /b\
pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/18/89)
In article <49823@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > Someone convinced Brian of the commercial potential of the program, >and he sold all commercial rights to a company which I think was formed for >the purpose of selling Scribe and related software. There was a big hassle >for awhile with C-MU trying to claim ownership and therefore collect all the >profits, but as i recall, the final decision was that, as a grad student, >Brian indeed had the rights to Scribe and could sell the program and collect >the profits if he wished. We can just ASK Brian, of course [reid@decwrl.dec.com ought to do, I'd guess], but the twist on this was that Brian did scribe *as* his doctoral dissertation project [speaking of self-referential efforts]. It is often the case that schools retain interests in stuff developed "on their behalf" in exchange for a degree [isn't that the old story about Land --- he had to *refuse* his degree at Harvard or else _they_ would have claimed ownership or license or some such in his work [I think that round was his polarizing material]], so things are not always as clear cut as they seem... in fact, in some ways I'm surprised that he *did* get CMU to let him retain the rights.... I am exactly in the same position; I am doing a lot of work that I will eventually turn over to the FSF, but I cannot do it on my University's machines because they reserve the right to sell it, and to forbid its publication in any form if it has any commercial value. I have had also to engineed things so that my dissertation is not the program, but *its analysis*, so in the worst case they can hoard the thesis describing the program but not the program itself. I have had to spend a lot of money to buy myself hardware and software for my project, because I cannot touch any University computer for my research. There are a few interesting aspects: @ the clauses that make all the work of students the exclusive property of the University are usually buried in some regulations that you must look up yourself (or in some intimidating paper that grants you access to University laboratories only if you renounce rights in the work you do therein), @ there are reliable rumours that the work of students is often sold without them being told (after all, it is said, it's the exclusive property of the University, not the student's), @ thesis supervisors apparently get a share of the royalties (I have been told that many would not be available to supervise theses if they were not guaranteed a share of the potential proceeds), @ research done by members of staff (academics) is usually instead their own property, even if developed with University resources (e.g. secretaries, computers, etc...), @ if a student is supported by a grant, usually rights are vested in the funding agency (unless it is from another country -- usually the works of non EEC students in the UK belong to the University, not to their country's government, even if supposedly their government paid for the full cost of their education) that often shares them with the student, but if the student is self financing, the University gets full control of the work. Some Universities, especially in the USA, are staunch (and wise, self interested) supporters of the idea of freely sharing research, some others are more short sighted. As to these, I resent their soliciting donations, discounts, and other gratuities from the public, and then profiting from the work of their *customers*. I think that this is one more case where the GNU GPL discourages free riders. In this respect some Universities are among the worst, and IMNHO, stupid, hoarders. UK Universities, that are especially keen on this, have squeezed a few thousand pounds selling their students' research, and lost the millions that come if you give it away for fame's sake, and to enhance their reputation (if any...). -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk