4 ms·

That's kind of orthogonal to the issue here. Many academics would not mind if their research is free. They do mind very much if some entity takes their research

by kldrt 2y ago

That's kind of orthogonal to the issue here. Many academics would not mind if their research is free. They do mind very much if some entity takes their research and republishes it without attribution.

lolinder 2y ago
Why is that orthogonal? If their research is truly free then everyone has permission to republish it all the time. If it was done with public funds then it belongs in the public domain, and if it's in the public domain then everyone can do everything they want with it. If they're not comfortable with that, then they aren't comfortable with their research being free-as-in-freedom.
- PhilipRoman 2y ago
  Do you not consider MIT licensed software "truly free"? Note the important part: "without attribution".
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Not free enough for publicly-funded research. I don't think copyright should apply at all to research that taxpayers paid for, it should instantly be public domain.
    - Delk 2y ago
      Irrespective of copyright, the moral right to attribution is central in all kinds of academic research. I agree that research information should be free of paywalls but that doesn't remove concerns about proper attribution. You can think that researchers shouldn't expect attribution either. I'd disagree, but in any case, removing that would significantly change the implicit social contract of academic research. Journal publishers and tech companies shouldn't be able to do that unilaterally.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      That's a great way to remove incentives for future researchers to pursue acedemia instead of pitching their projects to Microsoft directly. Or for private schools to hoard all the best researchers. I don't really agree on the hard line of "information should be free", but the first step to that ordeal isn't to remove incentives from creators. If creators didn't have to fear for being left in the dirt by corporations after having a breakthrough, we wouldn't need copyright to begin with.

by kldrt 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

Why is that orthogonal? If their research is truly free then everyone has permission to republish it all the time. If it was done with public funds then it belongs in the public domain, and if it's in the public domain then everyone can do everything they want with it. If they're not comfortable with that, then they aren't comfortable with their research being free-as-in-freedom.

PhilipRoman 2y ago
Do you not consider MIT licensed software "truly free"? Note the important part: "without attribution".
- lolinder 2y ago
  Not free enough for publicly-funded research. I don't think copyright should apply at all to research that taxpayers paid for, it should instantly be public domain.
  - Delk 2y ago
    Irrespective of copyright, the moral right to attribution is central in all kinds of academic research. I agree that research information should be free of paywalls but that doesn't remove concerns about proper attribution. You can think that researchers shouldn't expect attribution either. I'd disagree, but in any case, removing that would significantly change the implicit social contract of academic research. Journal publishers and tech companies shouldn't be able to do that unilaterally.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    That's a great way to remove incentives for future researchers to pursue acedemia instead of pitching their projects to Microsoft directly. Or for private schools to hoard all the best researchers. I don't really agree on the hard line of "information should be free", but the first step to that ordeal isn't to remove incentives from creators. If creators didn't have to fear for being left in the dirt by corporations after having a breakthrough, we wouldn't need copyright to begin with.