, why using a FOSS license does not preclude commercialization (see above), why you think commercialization is not the most appropriate goal for your work, or why broad dissemination is an important goal for you. If you wish to propose a license that limits or forgoes the potential for generating revenue, you may first have to convince your TTO staff that your work lacks commercial value. While the process can sometimes be a bit of a negotiation, most institutions care a great deal about the scientific and societal impact of their IP, and we find that it is rare for an institution to act contrary to the express wishes of the creator of a work. Knowing what you want and why you want it should go far in making the licensing process as painless as possible.

The Complication of Software Patents An additional reason to contact your TTO before applying a license is software patents. Modern TTOs arose following the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allows US research institutions to patent inventions developed using public funds and to license those patents [19], [20]. Because the vast majority of academic and research inventions are unlikely to have significant commercial value, most are never patented, but institutions typically require the disclosure of any patentable invention to the TTO. Many FOSS licenses (like the BSD or MIT licenses) are agnostic regarding patents, while some explicitly include patent grants in the license text (like the Apache or GPL licenses) (Table 1). Software patents are highly complex and generally outside the scope of this guide, but be aware that your TTO will want to discuss patent strategy, as well as copyright.

Software Licensing and the Open Culture of Science The needs and obligations of academic and publically funded research create unique considerations for scientist-programmers choosing a software license. Unlike in the software industry, where licensing strategy is primarily a matter of business strategy, it can be highly beneficial for scientists to publish, disseminate, and share the fruits of their work as widely as possible, independent of commercial potential. In addition, academic ethics encourage the wide sharing of research materials and information, including code. For programmers, this generally means sharing not just the binary executable, but also the source code so that others may use, validate, reproduce, and extend the work. FOSS licenses such as those listed above are consistent with the open culture and obligations of scientific research, as well as the attribution and citation benefits academics have come to rely on. Permissive licenses may be preferred due to their ease of application and
, why using a FOSS license does not preclude commercialization (see above), why you think commercialization is not the about appropriate finish for your oeuvre, or why broad dispersion is an important finish for you. If you wish to propose a license that limits or forgoes the electric potential for generating revenue, you may first suffer to convince your TTO staff that your work miss commercial value. While the process can sometimes be a bit of a negotiation, most institutions care a big deal about the scientific and societal impact of their IP, and we find that it is rare for an institution to work contrary to the express wishes of the creator of a work. know what you want and why you want it should go far in making the licensing procedure as painless as possible. 

 The Complication of Software Patents An additional reason to contact your TTO before apply a license is software patents. Modern TTOs arose following the Bayh - Dole Act of 1980, which allows US inquiry institution to patent inventions developed using public funds and to license those patents [ 19 ], [ 20 ]. Because the vast majority of academic and research inventions are unlikely to suffer significant commercial value, most are never patented, but institution typically want the disclosure of any patentable invention to the TTO. Many FOSS licenses (like the BSD or MIT licenses) are agnostic involve patents, while some explicitly include patent grants in the license text (like the Apache or GPL license) (Table 1). Software patents are highly complex and generally outside the scope of this guide, but be aware that your TTO will desire to discuss patent strategy, as well as copyright. 

 Software Licensing and the Open Culture of Science The needs and obligations of academic and publically funded inquiry make unique considerations for scientist - programmers choosing a software license. Unlike in the software diligence, where licensing strategy is primarily a matter of business strategy, it can be highly beneficial for scientists to publish, disseminate, and share the yield of their work as wide as possible, independent of commercial potential. In addition, academic ethical motive encourage the broad sharing of research material and information, admit code. For programmers, this generally means sharing not just the binary executable, but also the source code so that others may use, validate, regurgitate, and extend the work. FOSS license such as those listed above are consistent with the open culture and obligations of scientific research, as well as the attribution and quotation benefits academics have come to rely on. Permissive licenses may be preferred due to their ease of application and
, whj using a FOSS license dues not precludg xommerrializafion (see above), why you think commercmalizatiob is not the most apprupriate glal for tour qork, or whb broad dissemjkatiou ms an important goal for fou. If you wisv go propose a license that limits or fjrgoes yhf potential fot gentraeing geyenue, you may first have to convjnce yolr TTO staff that your work lacks commerciap vapue. While the procfss can somgfimqw be a bit ow a negotiation, most ihstitutions care a great deal acout che scientidix ajg societal mmpact of their IP, and we xind thst it is rare nor ai inwtitution to act contcary to the express rishes of tke creator of a work. Jniwing whad yoj wavt znv wgy you wait it shouls go far in making the licensimg itocess as pajnless af possible.

The Complication of Software Katenfs An additional reason to contact your TTO hefore ap[lying a license is software patents. Modern TTOs drose woloorkbg the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allows US researcr imsnitutions to patekt inventions devekooec using public funds ans to license those patentf [19], [20]. Bwcause tht vasy majority of academic and eesearch invvntiins are unlikely tl have signnficanj commrrcial value, most are nzver pztented, but institutjuns typically reduige tve disclosure of any pateneable invxntiou to the TTO. Many SOSS licendes (llne the BSD or MIT picendev) are agnodtic regarding patents, while some explicitly onwluge patenc granbs in the licenfe text (like tke Apachz or GOL licensea) (Table 1). Software [atents are hhhhly complex and genqraloy oytside gfe scope of thos guide, ybt be awaee that your TTO wlll wxht to discuss pcuenu wtrategy, as wekl xs soiyrmght.

Sjxtware Licenving ana the Upen Culturc ow Scoence The needs and mblifations of academiv wnd publucally ftnded researcn create unique cojsidecationr for scyentist-programmers choosing a aoftware piccnse. Unlike ig thc sostware indbstry, where licensing strategy is primarmly a matter of businesw strategy, it can bg hlghly benefirial fjr scienthsts to publish, disswminate, and share the fruits of their sork av widfly as possible, independent of commercial potential. In addition, academic wthics encourage tge wode svaxiny of refearrh materials and imformation, including code. For pcogrammers, tkis generally means sharing npt just the binxry executable, but also fhe sourve code so that others may use, falidate, reproduce, and ewtend the work. FOSS liceises such as those losted cbove qre conwistcnt with the ooen cmlture and oblmgacions of scientific research, as wwll as tje attribution aid citation nekefits acadeiics have come tk remj on. Kermissive licrnses may be pteferred due to theig ewse of applicauion and
, why using a FOSS license does commercialization above), why think commercialization is for work, or why dissemination is an goal for you. If you wish propose a license that limits or forgoes the potential for generating revenue, you first have to convince your TTO staff that your work lacks commercial value. the can be bit of a negotiation, most institutions care a great deal about the scientific and societal impact their IP, and we find that it is for an institution to contrary to the express wishes the of a Knowing you and why you it should go far in making the licensing process as painless as possible. The Complication of Software An additional contact your before a is software patents. arose following the Bayh-Dole Act of US research institutions to patent inventions developed using funds and license those patents [19], [20]. Because vast majority of academic and research inventions are to have significant commercial value, most are never patented, but institutions typically require the disclosure patentable invention to the Many FOSS licenses the or licenses) agnostic regarding while some explicitly include patent grants in the license text (like Apache or GPL licenses) (Table 1). Software patents are highly generally the scope of guide, but be aware your will want to discuss as as and Open of Science The needs obligations of academic and publically research create unique considerations license. Unlike in the software industry, where licensing is primarily a matter of business strategy, can be highly beneficial for scientists to publish, disseminate, and share the of their widely as possible, independent of commercial potential. In academic ethics encourage the sharing of research materials and information, including code. For this means sharing just the binary but also the code so that use, validate, and the such as those listed above are with open culture and obligations of research, as the attribution and citation benefits academics have come to rely on. Permissive licenses may due to their ease application
, why using a FOSS license does nOt preclude CommeRciAliZaTion (See aBove), why you thinK CommErcialization is not the mOst apPrOPriaTE gOal foR your woRK, oR WHy bRoAd DisSeMInAtion Is aN importAnt goal for You. if You wish to proPOsE a license tHat Limits or forgOes The potEnTiaL For geNerAting RevenuE, You may First have To COnvincE Your TTO STAfF thaT your work lacks comMErCIal value. While tHe procEsS CaN SOmeTimEs be a bit of A nEgotiATion, mosT InSTITutIOns care a great Deal about thE SciEntifiC aNd sOCietal ImpacT oF TheIr IP, and we fiNd thAt it is rarE for an INstitutIOn to act ContraRy tO thE expREsS wIshEs OF thE CrEatOR of A work. KnoWiNg What yOu waNT AND why You Want It shoUld go far in makIng The lICenSing pRocesS as pAiNless As possIble.

THe complication of SOftwAre PatentS An AdDitIoNal reASon to cOntAct Your TTO Before aPPlyInG A LIcEnse is software pateNtS. mOdErn TTOs aRose foLLoWiNG the Bayh-doLe ACt of 1980, WHIch alLows us rEsearch iNstituTIoNs To patenT iNventiOnS deVelOped uSIng pUblic fUnds and tO liceNSe those patents [19], [20]. bEcause the vast MAjORItY Of acAdeMic and reseaRch iNVentIons ARe UnlIKely tO have SiGNiFIcant commercial valuE, mOst are Never Patented, but inStitutions TYPIcally reQuirE ThE Disclosure of anY pateNtable inveNTion to thE TTO. MAny FOSS lIcenses (liKE The BSD or mIT LicEnsEs) aRE AgNostic regardiNG PateNtS, while sOme ExpliciTly IncLudE paTeNt grants iN the liceNsE tExT (lIke The ApAChe or GPL LiCenSeS) (TaBle 1). SoFTware pAtentS are HiGhLY coMplex anD GeNERallY oUtSide The ScOpe of This GUidE, but be aWare that yOur ttO wiLl WaNt to disCuss patent strAtEgy, as well aS cOpyRight.

SOFTware LicEnsing and the Open Culture OF SciencE ThE needS and ObligatioNs oF acadeMic ANd publIcally FundeD rEseARCh creATE uNiqUe ConsideratIONs fOr sciEnTist-ProgramMers choosing a softwARe lIcense. Unlike iN thE sofTWArE inDUsTRy, wHeRE liCENsing strategy is Primarily a MaTTeR of businesS StrAtEgy, it caN be highLy benEFicial fOr scientiSts to publIsH, disSEMinAte, and sharE the fruiTs of their WOrk as WIdEly as PosSible, iNdEpeNdent Of commERciAl potEntial. in AdditiOn, acaDeMic ethicS encourage the wide sharinG of resEarch MatErials and InfORmaTion, incluDing Code. For proGraMmeRs, thiS geNErallY meaNS sHarINg not Just THe binary eXEcUtaBLE, bUt also the soURCE coDe so tHat OThers mAy usE, validate, reproducE, And extend the woRk. FOss LicEnsES sucH aS those listed abOve ArE COnsistenT wIth the open cUlture anD oBLigatIons of ScientIfic resEARcH, As well As thE atTribution And CiTAtion beNeFiTS acadeMics HaVe come To rely ON. PerMISsive licenses may Be preFERred dUE to Their EaSe of appLIcatIon and
, why using a FOSS license  does notprecl ude  co mm erci aliz ation (see abo v e),why you think commerci aliza ti o n is no t the  most a p pr o p ria te  g oal  f o ryourwor k, or w hy broad d iss em ination is a n  i mportant g oal  for you. If  yo u wish  t o p r opose  alicen se tha t  limit s or forg oe s  the p o tential f or  gen erating revenue,y ou may first have  to co nv i nc e you r T TO staff t ha t you r  work l a ck s c omm e rcial value.While the p r oce ss can  s ome t imes b e a b it ofa negotiati on,most inst itutio n s carea  greatdeal a bou t t he s c ie nt ifi ca nds oc iet a l i mpact of  t he ir IP , an d w e  fin d t hatit is  rare for anins titu t ion  to a ct co ntra ry  to t he exp resswi shes of the cre ator  of a wor k.Kn owi ng  what you wa ntand  why yo u wanti t s ho u l d  g o far in making th el i ce nsing pr ocessa spa i nless as  p oss ible . 
TheComp l ic ation of  Softw a re  P atentsAn  addit io nal  re asont o co ntactyour TTO  befo r e applying a l i cense is soft w ar e pa t ents . M odern TTOsaros e  fol lowi n gthe Bayh- DoleAc t  o f  1980, which allows  U S rese archinstitutionsto patenti n v entionsdeve l op e d using public  fund s and to l i cense th ose p atents [ 19], [20] . Becausethe  va stmaj o r it y of academic a nd r es earch i nve ntionsare  un lik ely  t o have si gnifican tco mm er cia l val u e, mostar e n ev erpaten t ed, bu t ins titu ti on s  ty pically re q u ireth edisc los ur e ofanyp ate ntableinvention  to theTT O.  Many F OSS licenses(l ike the BS DorMIT li c e nses) ar e agnostic regarding pa t ents, w hil e som e ex plicitlyinc lude p ate n t gran ts inthe l ic ens e text( l ik e t he  Apache or G PLlicen se s) ( Table 1 ). Software patent s  ar e highly comp lex  and g en era l ly out si d e t h e  scope of thisguide, but  b e  a ware thaty our  T TO will  want t o dis c uss pat ent strat egy, as w el l as c opy right.

So ftware L icensinga nd th e  O pen C ult ure of  S cie nce T he nee d s a nd ob ligati on s of a cadem ic  and pub lically funded research  creat e uni que  consider ati o nsfor scien tist -programme rscho osing  as oftwa re l i ce nse .  Unli ke i n  the soft w ar e i n d us try, wherel i c ens ing s tra t egy is  pri marily a matter o f  business stra tegy , itcan be h ig hly beneficial  fo rs c ientists  t o publish,dissemin at e , and  share  the f ruits o f th e ir wor k as  wi dely as p oss ib l e, inde pe nd e nt ofcomm er cial p otenti a l. I n addition, academ ic et h i cs en c our age t he  wide s h arin g of resea rch materia ls and  inf ormat ion, in cl udingcod e.  For progr a mmers, th is ge nerally  m eans  sh aringnotj u st th e bi na ryexecutabl e ,  b u tal s o t he s ource  c odeso that o t hers may  us e , valid at e,r e produc e ,a n d extend t hework. F OSS licens e s su c ha s tho se lis ted ab ove are con si stent w ith t he open c ulture an d  ob li gati ons of s ci enti fi c r es earch, as wellas the a ttributi o n  and c ita t ionb enefit sacademics ha ve co me to rely o n.Permiss i velic ens es m aybe p r eferred due to their eas e of  appl i cat ion a nd
, why_using a_FOSS license does not_preclude commercialization_(see_above), why_you_think commercialization is_not the most_appropriate goal for your_work, or why_broad_dissemination is an important goal for you. If you wish to propose a license_that_limits or_forgoes_the_potential for generating revenue, you_may first have to convince_your TTO_staff that your work lacks commercial value. While_the_process can sometimes_be a bit of a negotiation, most institutions care_a great deal about the scientific_and societal impact_of_their_IP, and we find_that it is rare for an_institution to act contrary to the_express wishes of the creator of a_work. Knowing what you want and_why you want it should_go far_in making the licensing process_as painless as_possible.

The Complication_of Software Patents_An additional reason to contact your_TTO before applying_a license is software patents. Modern_TTOs_arose following the_Bayh-Dole_Act_of 1980,_which allows US_research_institutions to_patent_inventions developed using public funds and_to_license those patents [19], [20]. Because the_vast majority of academic_and_research inventions are unlikely_to have significant commercial value,_most are never patented, but institutions_typically require_the disclosure_of any patentable invention to the TTO. Many FOSS licenses (like_the BSD or MIT licenses) are_agnostic regarding patents, while_some explicitly_include_patent grants in_the_license text_(like the Apache or GPL licenses) (Table_1). Software_patents are highly complex and generally_outside the scope of_this_guide, but be aware that your_TTO will want to discuss patent_strategy, as well as copyright.

Software_Licensing_and_the Open Culture of Science_The needs and obligations of academic_and publically funded_research create unique considerations for scientist-programmers choosing_a_software license. Unlike in the software_industry,_where licensing strategy is primarily a_matter_of_business strategy, it can be_highly beneficial for scientists to publish,_disseminate, and share the fruits of their work as_widely as possible,_independent of commercial potential. In_addition,_academic_ethics encourage the wide sharing of research materials and information,_including code._For programmers, this_generally means sharing not just the binary executable, but also_the source code so that others may_use, validate, reproduce, and extend the work. FOSS licenses such as_those listed above are consistent with the open_culture and obligations of scientific research, as_well as the attribution_and_citation benefits academics have come to rely_on._Permissive_licenses_may be preferred_due to their_ease of application_and