11 ms·
Dear Regents of the University of California: Could you guys someday learn to get out of your own way?
by alrs 10y ago
Dear Regents of the University of California:
Could you guys someday learn to get out of your own way?
- blackguardx 10y agoWell, I think most organizations would be uncomfortable handing over their IP rights to third parties. Didn't the FSF make an exception to this rule for another developer? Also, why can't they use Clang/LLVM? That uses the BSD license as far as I know.
- justincormack 10y agoThere is risc-v support for llvm too, but they want it to be upstream in gcc too, as lots of things use or need gcc.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoUC does not really have IP rights under the CA Constitution. At least, not any right that prevents a person from speaking freely. UC cannot enforce copyright, NDAs, or other restrictions of speech. I think there is a very good argument that UC is unable to enforce (or even hold) a patent. > Article 1, Section 2 (a). Sentence 2 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
- blackguardx 10y agoThen why is there such a big battle over CRISPR patents?
- jsprogrammer 10y agoI'm not familiar with the case, but UC has acted outside the Constitution in the past.
- Lerc 10y agoCan they not exploit IP by transferring rights to another entity? If they cannot transfer rights to another entity then it's going to be tricky for them to do it for the fsf.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoHow can they transfer rights they do not have?
- jcranmer 10y agoThe citation you provided does not constitute evidence for any of your claims. Copyright is not related to freedom of speech or of press.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoCopyright is a restriction on both speech and press. And, it would be occurring by a Trust established by the CA Constitution if UC ever enforced such a restriction. Which is prohibited.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Copyright is a restriction on both speech and press. Were that so, it would be prohibited by the First Amendment. The California state protection of speech from government interference has similar scope, and does not prohibit copyrights, nor does it prohibit the state or subordinate public entities of or within the state from either enforcing state copyright law (which exists) or exercising copyrights that they own.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoThe California Constitution is extremely clear. No one may restrict the freeness of anyone's speech and especially not any law. If UC uses its lawful property ownership powers (or any other) to restrict someone's speech, it has acted contrary to the CA Constitution.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoI'll just leave this here. >CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION >ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS >SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y agoDo you have any other links supporting this claim, such as court decisions.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoCheck out Article 9, Section 9: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_9 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_9 I'm not sure of any court decisions. Someone would need to be restricted by the University and challenge it to produce a case. I don't know if that has happened yet.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y agoAre you sure that link says what you think it does? """ (f) The Regents of the University of California shall be vested with the legal title and the management and disposition of the property of the university and of property held for its benefit and shall have the power to take and hold, either by purchase or by donation, or gift, testamentary or otherwise, or in any other manner, without restriction, all real and personal property for the benefit of the university or incidentally to its conduct; provided, however, that sales of university real property shall be subject to such competitive bidding procedures as may be provided by statute. Said corporation shall also have all the powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of its trust, including the power to sue and to be sued, to use a seal, and to delegate to its committees or to the faculty of the university, or to others, such authority or functions as it may deem wise. """
- jsprogrammer 10y agoYes. What is the purpose of that wall of text you pasted?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y agoIntellectual Property is not real property but it's still property.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> UC does not really have IP rights under the CA Constitution. Yes, it does. IP is a subset of personal property (more specifically, a subset of intangible personal property) and the Regents of the University of California have the "power to take and hold, either by purchase or by donation, or gift, testamentary or otherwise, or in any other manner, without restriction, all real and personal property for the benefit of the university or incidentally to its conduct". Art. IX, Sec. 9(f). [0] [0] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_9 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_9
- jsprogrammer 10y agoUC cannot restrict speech, so the fact that something is its property is merely the formality of the public's ownership.
- notalaser 10y agoA university is not "most organizations".
- blackguardx 10y agoHow do you think US universities make their money these days? A lot of it comes from IP.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Esau 10y agoWhich is really annoying if they are funded, even partially, by the government.
- rayiner 10y agoJust because a VC funds your company, should it own everything you make? And the government encourages the practice. Both because it reduces funding requirements, and because it creates an incentive for professors and students to take the IP and commercialize it.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act
- wolfgke 10y agoWhere is the difference between transferring copyright to the FSF and selling IP (including transferring copright) to some commercial vendor?
- Ar-Curunir 10y agoNot exactly the university's fault if state keeps cutting funding.
- hedora 10y ago
- legulere 10y agoThe LLVM risc-v backend is currently getting reimplemented by Alex Bradbury: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-August/103748.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-August/103748....
- asb 10y agoThanks for the note. I've got a lightning talk at the upcoming November LLVM Dev meeting where I'll give an update (and should be refreshing my patches and updating on the llvm mailing list the next few days). Sadly the proposal Colin Schmidt and I put together for a RISC-V Birds of a Feather session was rejected, but I imagine there'll still be an informal discussion between a group of interested people on the "corridor track".
- erichocean 10y ago> the proposal Colin Schmidt and I put together for a RISC-V Birds of a Feather session was rejected Wow, that's lame.
- gnufx 10y ago[See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html#noip https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html#noip concerning "IP", and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html (by a lawyer) concerning copyright assignment. Note the obligations on the FSF in the assignment contract.] Organizations that design(ed) CPUs with copyright papers on file with the FSF for GCC include AMD, ARM, IBM, Intel, MIPS, and Sun; others include Apple, Microsoft, and Samsung. The licence involved is orthogonal to copyright assignment.