Saturday, August 18, 2001

bookmark: connotea :: del.icio.us ::digg ::furl ::reddit ::yahoo::

"Steve Brenner, assistant professor and leader of a computational genomics research group at the University of California, Berkeley, said he fears that many academic bioinformaticists are unaware of a legal risk they face on a daily basis: contributing to open source software projects without explicit permission from their institutions.

While many employers have clauses in their employment contracts that restrict the creation and use of open source software, bioinformatics programmers at universities are often not as attuned to copyright issues as their industry counterparts. This fact, Brenner said, raises the possibility that a good portion of biological open source software is currently being produced illegally."

"The issue seems to be coming to a head in the academic world now, as more universities are exploiting the revenue stream made possible by their copyright and patent holdings. ?If you?re a software developer, the university holds rights to your software, but if you?re an English professor or Law professor and publish a book, they?re not the least bit interested in copyright,? said Thomas Field, an attorney at the Franklin Pierce Law Center affiliated with the Association of University Technology Managers."

MIT Technology Review Origin of the Patents

"The adjective "Darwinian" is often applied to the dog-eat-dog software industry. But get ready for software that orchestrates natural selection among computer programs so that researchers can harvest the surviving code."

"At Stanford, genetic programming research seeks to produce results that are competitive with human problem solving, and to test that by evaluating success in duplicating or infringing upon existing U.S. patents. The research effort now has accomplished just that for patents generated as recently as last year. The work may eventually deliver automated "invention machines," says John Koza, genetic computing guru and consulting professor of biomedical informatics at Stanford."

redux [07.27.00]
Informatics Review Open Source Software in Healthcare

"Good software forms seamless connections; as George Orwell said of prose, the best is like a window pane: transparent. The obscurity of commercial binaries is an obstacle to good quality communication between systems. In healthcare, good communication is too important to remain proprietary. Software developers should remain confident that there will always be work for the future in discovering, providing, and adapting applications for organizations, and training people to use them. This, rather than the sharp-suited gouging of Bill Gates wannabees, should become the predominant business model for software in the British NHS. Software engineering will become a profession more like medicine and the law: in which practitioners earn a fair hourly reward for their experience at interpreting, evaluating and applying knowledge from a specialized domain to the benefit of their clients. Current models, which restrict the sharing and development of knowledge, are certainly counterproductive and arguably unethical. Open source is the future: all we have to do is built it."

redux [04.28.00]
Nature Open-source work even more vital to genome project than to software

"We note with dismay and alarm the controversy concerning access, distribution and patenting of the human genome sequence (Nature 404, 317; 2000 & Nature 404, 324; 2000). We wish to point out some analogies between the human genome sequencing efforts and 'open-source' software development, which have implications for the data-release policy of the public sequencing effort."

"The reasons why the Linux project could succeed against commercial wisdom have been analysed by Eric S. Raymond in his book The Cathedral and the Bazaar (O'Reilly, 1999). Most of these findings are of relevance to academic and commercial benefits arising from human genome sequencing."

[via bioinformatics.org]