4 ms·
They did provide a license. Research purposes only. Explicit license must be obtained for commercial use directly from UCLA. I don't think it is a trap eithe
by thebouv 11y ago
They did provide a license.
Research purposes only.
Explicit license must be obtained for commercial use directly from UCLA.
I don't think it is a trap either. I think it is exactly what their department's legal advisor told them to put on there or is boilerplate they even put in a printed document of the algorithm or any research paper.
It doesn't need more than that just because it is open source and it doesn't need a well-known OSS license either.
Now, I hope they DO go with a more detailed license that is "more" OSS friendly.
- dheera 11y ago"from UCLA". That might mean the researchers intend to apply for a patent on behalf of the university via their technology licensing office or similar, because most universities don't permit individuals to apply for patents solely in their name for research done using university resources. Whether or not the university actually wants to pursue the patent application it is another story. It's conceivable that they may want to use said patent to spin-off a startup or do something else with it. However, I agree with you that I do not think it is a trap. As a general rule it's very, very bad to be sneaky in academia and once you publish anything it's pretty standard that you should be open about your intentions regarding already-published work.