On 19 Jul 2002 07:54:03 +0300 Oleg Goldshmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My reading is different. Before, no one outside of government could do > anythign with the results of the research, because there were patents
Only the government? What are you talking about? Look at some of the
examples I gave. Non of them is govenment related.
> but there were no licenses to use them.
Hmm... let's see: Berkley license, MIT/X11 (all from the 80's).
> If you are thinking in Israeli terms, you are right. But most of this
> discussion refers to US, for better or for worse. I don't have the
> numbers, but I am not even sure that more that 50% of US universities
> are public. Most of the best known (and contributing much of the best
> research and best researchers) are in fact private.
Ok, so the word "public" is ambigous. I wasn't talking about university
financing issues (e.g: MIT and CMU are private).
What I refered to was what "drives" the organization:
Company goals:
To bring profit to shareholders.
University (private or public) goals:
To advance education and science.
But lately, universities (both private and public) has another
"goal":
Profit as much as we can from our "IP".
...Ok everybody, don't flame me, quiting from this thread...
'nough is'nough
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron
"It's almost like we're doing Windows users a favor by charging them money
for something they could get for free, because they get confused otherwise."
- Larry Wall.
msg20601/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
