3 ms·
I don't understand why you think you were wrong, based on the article. Surely it depends upon your objectives. If your goal is for researchers to use the softwa
by anjc 9y ago
I don't understand why you think you were wrong, based on the article. Surely it depends upon your objectives. If your goal is for researchers to use the software then one license might be preferable, if your goal is commercialisation then another license might be.
In the same way that some researchers wont use software which doesn't have permissive licenses, some companies wont use software which does.
I don't get it. I also don't get why you expected license agreements to be signed and completed in a single day by commercial entities. You couldn't sign and complete a 5 minute coffee date with most company's IP staff within a single day, nevermind have licensing arrangements agreed upon.
- ubernostrum 9y agoThe wrongness I read from it is a certain level of arrogance, that there can't really be anything too complex in licensing and copyright issues, and all those lawyers just must be posturing or engaging in pointless make-work. The discovery that well-understood standard license terms are preferred for a reason, and that there are very real issues lurking in non-standard license agreements, and corresponding realization that maybe all the people saying "you're wrong" had a point... is a step toward correcting that arrogance.
- anjc 9y agoThat makes total sense but it sounds as if his realisation tended towards open licenses being preferable in all academic scenarios, due to a now-more firmly held belief that lawyers etc are a waste of time. This obviously isn't a rule which applies generally, and I'm not sure why it even applies here when his goal was to commercialise, not to please researchers.