Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was wrong (part 2)

liorpachter.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: I was wrong (part 2)

#11

Post by anjc »

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.

Re: I was wrong (part 2)

#12

Post by drefgert »

csydas wrote: post #10
drefgert wrote: post #9

There won't be too many comments on this post cause the internet ain't interested when someone says they are wrong. The internet wants to TELL them they are wrong, when they think they're right.

I'm not sure that's so true. Everyone enjoys a good argument over what license the author should have used. ) I do get what you're saying but I think people discuss positive things all the time on even the worst sites. Admitting you're wrong isn't all that novel, but the changing of license is.

So you're saying I'm wrong?

Re: I was wrong (part 2)

#13

Post by anjc »

glangdale wrote: post #5

Good to see this change, but I wish people wouldn't go down this road to begin with. Speaking as someone who sits in industry now, I have found it almost impossible to successfully conclude negotiations between not-very-interested academics who don't really understand how licensing works (and the staff who supposedly help them) and a big, paranoid company. When you put some rando commercial license or complicated ter…

What are these not-very-interested academics expecting? For you to agree to whatever commercial license or...?

I don't get why you'd expect academic institutions to offer you permissive licenses though, when in all likelihood you have your own complicated partnership/IP/licensing processes for industry partners. Why is it ok for them but not for you?

And what difference does it make that their research is tax-payer funded? That doesn't make it free. That means that the institute has an obligation to make returns and, academic research being somewhat open, lock down IP rights with certainty.

Re: I was wrong (part 2)

#14

Post by anjc »

drefgert wrote: post #12
csydas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's so true. Everyone enjoys a good argument over what license the author should have used. ) I do get what you're saying but I think people discuss positive things all the time on even the worst sites. Admitting you're wrong isn't all that novel, but the changing of license is.

So you're saying I'm wrong?

I Was Wrong (Part 3)

Re: I was wrong (part 2)

#15

Post by abiox »

drefgert wrote: post #12
csydas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's so true. Everyone enjoys a good argument over what license the author should have used. ) I do get what you're saying but I think people discuss positive things all the time on even the worst sites. Admitting you're wrong isn't all that novel, but the changing of license is.

So you're saying I'm wrong?

So you're saying this was a trap?

Re: I was wrong (part 2)

#16

Post by folli »

glangdale wrote: post #5

Good to see this change, but I wish people wouldn't go down this road to begin with. Speaking as someone who sits in industry now, I have found it almost impossible to successfully conclude negotiations between not-very-interested academics who don't really understand how licensing works (and the staff who supposedly help them) and a big, paranoid company. When you put some rando commercial license or complicated ter…

As someone also on the industry side of things, what would be your recommended solution to the problem? On the one hand we don't want the legal mess that licensing entails, on the other hand I'm absolutely in favor of reimbursing the academics in some way. But how?

Some new, standardized, industry accepted commercial license (who will invest the required legal effort to come up with such a license that's accepted by both sides?)? A concept based on voluntary donations (good luck getting that by the finance department)?

Re: I was wrong (part 2)

#17

Post by anjc »

glangdale wrote: post #5

Good to see this change, but I wish people wouldn't go down this road to begin with. Speaking as someone who sits in industry now, I have found it almost impossible to successfully conclude negotiations between not-very-interested academics who don't really understand how licensing works (and the staff who supposedly help them) and a big, paranoid company. When you put some rando commercial license or complicated ter…

Follow up to my other comment...I just noticed from your bio that you work at Intel, and now have to lol at you complaining about academics trying to license commercial products. I presume you don't mind when tax-funds are directed towards academic R&D when it's conducted for Intel (and plenty of it is in Europe) :)

Re: I was wrong (part 2)

#18

Post by ubernostrum »

anjc wrote: post #11

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 i…

The 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.

Re: I was wrong (part 2)

#19

Post by anjc »

ubernostrum wrote: post #18
anjc wrote: post #11

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 i…

The 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 realizatio…

That 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.

Re: I was wrong (part 2)

#20

Post by dm319 »

Here's the license for stampy, a popular read aligner from Oxford:

12. License ===========

This is a release version. Permission is granted for the normal use of the program and its output in an academic setting, including in publications. If the program is used to generate data for a publication, please cite this paper:

G. Lunter and M. Goodson. Stampy: A statistical algorithm for sensitive and fast mapping of Illumina sequence reads. Genome Res. 2011 21:936-939.

The program itself may not be modified in any way, and may not be reverse-engineered.

This license does not allow the use of this program for any commercial purpose. If you wish to use this program for commercial purposes, please contact the author.

No guarantees are given as to the program's correctness, or the accuracy or completeness of its output. The author accepts no liability for damage or otherwise following from using and interpreting the output of this program. The software is supplied "as is", without obligation by the author to provide any services or support.

http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/~gerton/README.txt

Post reply on HN