Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU!hedrick From: hedrick@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: PD TCP/IP requests Message-ID: <8707221755.AA27315@topaz.rutgers.edu> Date: Wed, 22-Jul-87 13:55:19 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.8707221755.AA27315 Posted: Wed Jul 22 13:55:19 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 17:58:18 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 20 With Universities at least, ownership of code funded by the government depends upon the provisions of the grant. If the grant was a contract that specified production of software as a deliverable, then it is work for hire, and the code is owned by the government, or required to be PD, or something like that. However if the grant called for research, and the code was in effect a sideeffect of the research, then all agencies that I know interpret that the code was not the thing that they were contracting for, and the University owns it. Few universities these days are willing to admit that any code the produce was the intended product of their work, so although the government pays for much of the code produced by our universities, the tendency is for very little of it to be regarded as covered by the provisions requiring government-funded code to be public. Some agencies consider this a good thing, because they'd rather see the universities have enough ownership of the code to be able to sell it to a software house for futher development and eventual marketing. This is viewed as "technology transfer", and gets them brownie points. Agencies apparently do not view PD software as accomplishing much. I disapprove of this trend, and view all of my work as PD, but I seem to be fighting a losing battle.