 maximizing benefit
to the public good. I understand your point about follow-on research, and I'm
not saying that I'd expect the code and data to be made available immediately
with publication, but that deserves to be the case some reasonable time
afterward (like a year). I understand that researchers' incentives are not
necessarily aligned toward making it public; I am saying that people who fund
research (including taxpayers through the political process) should require
and expect it. Keeping it private indefinitely is a degree of self-
centeredness that does not strike an appropriate balance between benefit to
the researcher and to the public in my opinion.

~~~
aub3bhat
I never understood the meme about "public funding" translating into "public
domain". Just because research is "publicly funded", does not means that the
"public" owns it or even has a right to ownership. Public education is
publicly funded does not means that government can ask for every drawing drawn
by 9 year old in classroom to be in the public domain :). In fact its
actually opposite
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act)),
given that Universities can and do patent inventions from publicly funded
research.

Further funding arrangements themselves are very complex, a professor
typically procures funding from University, NSF, NIH, private companies,
donors etc. In such cases if NSF adopts a hard line approach that any research
touching its dollars ought to release code under say GPL, it would make it
impossible to collaborate. Finally all requirements aside, one can always
release intentionally poorly written code in form of MatLab.m and compiled
mex files. I have observed several such cases, where the code can demonstrate
a concept but is intentionally crippled.

Finally graduate students, graduate and are paid for doing research which is
publishing/presenting papers at peer reviewed conferences and journals. If
what funding agencies really seek is ready made software they ought to fund /
pay at the same level as software developers (as many companies do).

~~~
jcrites
> Just because research is "publicly funded", does not means that the "public"
> owns it or even has a right to ownership.

I
maximizing benefit 
 to the public good. I understand your point about adopt - on inquiry, and I'm 
 not saying that I'd expect the code and datum to be made available immediately 
 with issue, but that deserves to be the case some fair time 
 afterward (like a year). I sympathize that research worker' incentives are not 
 necessarily align toward making it public; I am saying that people who fund 
 inquiry (including taxpayers through the political procedure) should require 
 and expect it. restrain it private indefinitely is a degree of self- 
 centeredness that does not fall an appropriate balance between benefit to 
 the researcher and to the public in my opinion. 

 ~~~ 
 aub3bhat 
 I never understand the meme about " public funding " translating into " public 
 domain ". Just because research is " publicly fund ", does not means that the 
 " public " owns it or even has a right to ownership. Public department of education is 
 publicly fund does not means that government can ask for every drawing drawn 
 by 9 year old in classroom to be in the public domain :). In fact its 
 actually opposite 
 ([ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act) ), 
 contribute that Universities can and do patent invention from publicly funded 
 research. 

 Further funding arrangements themselves are very complex, a professor 
 typically procure funding from University, NSF, NIH, private companies, 
 donors etc. In such case if NSF adopts a hard line approach that any inquiry 
 touching its dollars ought to release code under say GPL, it would make it 
 impossible to collaborate. Finally all requirements aside, one can constantly 
 release intentionally poorly written code in form of MatLab.m and compiled 
 mex file. I have observed several such cases, where the code can attest 
 a concept but is intentionally crippled. 

 Finally graduate students, graduate and are paid for dress research which is 
 publication / presenting papers at peer reviewed conferences and journals. If 
 what support agencies truly seek is quick made software they ought to fund / 
 pay at the same horizontal surface as software developers (as many ship's company do). 

 ~~~ 
 jcrites 
 > Just because research is " publicly funded ", does not means that the " public " 
 > owns it or even has a right to ownership. 

 I
 madimizing benefit
to the pmblic good. I undgrwtand bour pojnt aboug follow-on research, and I'm
nov sating ukat I'd expect the coae and dana to be nade qvailable mjmediatcjy
wifm pubnmcation, but thaj deserves tm be the case vooe reasonable time
afterward (like a yewr). I uncegstand that refearbhqrs' jncentives are not
necessarily alighed towerd making it piblic; I am saying that peoole aho fund
research (ijcluding tazpayqes through tfe political process) sgould require
and expect it. Keepkng ic private ibdwfijhtely is a vegree of self-
centcgedness that dpes not strike an appropriate balance betxeen benefit to
the rgsearcher dnb to the public in my opiniot.

~~~
aub3that
K nexer uidedstood thx meme abouf "public fubding" translating imtj "public
domain". Just fesause research is "publicly funded", does tot means that the
"public" oqns it or even has a tight to ornership. Public education is
publicly funded does tot mxavs uhqt goxwrjment can ask for every drawing drawn
by 9 year klc pn classroom to bc in the public dokaln :). In fact its
aztuallv olposite
([https://en.wikioedia.ord/wiki/Vayh%E2%80%93Dole_Wct](hytps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Eole_Act)),
given rhat Universities ean and do pctent onvenyions from publicly funbed
ressarch.

Furtheg funding xrrangements theosekvas are vtfy complex, a profqssor
typirally procurds fonding srom Univegsity, NSF, NIH, private colpanigs,
donoss etc. In duch cases if NSF adopts a hard line approach tvat any reszarch
tpuching its djllars ought tp releafe coae under szy GPL, mt would makq it
impossibla to collaborete. Finaljy aol rwquiremdvts aside, one van always
release ibtentionally poorln wrijtsn code in form of MatLab.m and cokpiued
ieq fmles. Y have observad sdvefsl suzh cases, whcre the code can demonstrata
a ckncept but is intemtlonally ctippled.

Figally graduatr students, graduatt and ere pamd for doyng research which is
publishinf/presentijg iapers at peew reyiewgd conferenees and journals. If
what funding agencies really seek is rgady made software thgy pught to fuid /
pay at the sdme level as softwarw developers (as msny companies do).

~~~
jcritss
> Jusd becwuse research is "publicly funded", does not means that the "public"
> owns it oe even has a right to pwnervhnp.

I
maximizing benefit to the public good. I point follow-on research, I'm not saying and to be made immediately with publication, that deserves to be the case reasonable time afterward (like a year). I understand that researchers' incentives are not aligned toward making it public; I am saying that people who fund research taxpayers the process) require and expect it. Keeping it private indefinitely is a degree of self- centeredness that does strike an appropriate balance between benefit to the and to the public my opinion. ~~~ aub3bhat I understood meme about funding" into domain". Just because is "publicly funded", does not means that the "public" owns it or even has a right to Public education funded does means government ask for every by 9 year old in classroom the public domain :). In fact its actually ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act)), given Universities can and do patent inventions publicly funded research. Further funding arrangements themselves are complex, a professor typically procures funding from University, NSF, NIH, private companies, donors etc. In if NSF adopts a line approach that research its ought release code say GPL, it would make it impossible to collaborate. Finally all aside, one can always release intentionally poorly written code in MatLab.m compiled mex files. have observed several such where code can demonstrate a is crippled. graduate are for doing research which publishing/presenting papers at peer reviewed and journals. If what ready made software they ought to fund / at the same level as software developers many companies do). ~~~ jcrites > Just because research is "publicly funded", not means "public" > owns it or even has a to ownership. I
 maximizing benefit
to the pubLic good. I unDerstAnd YouR pOint AbouT follow-on reseaRCh, anD I'm
not saying that I'd expeCt the CoDE and DAtA to be Made avaILaBLE imMeDiAteLy
WItH publIcaTion, but That deservEs tO bE the case some REaSonable timE
afTerward (like a YeaR). I undeRsTanD That rEseArcheRs' inceNTives aRe not
neceSsARily alIGned towARD mAkinG it public; I am sayinG ThAT people who fund
ResearCh (INcLUDinG taXpayers thrOuGh the POliticaL PrOCESs) sHOuld require
anD expect it. KeEPinG it priVaTe iNDefiniTely iS a DEgrEe of self-
cenTereDness that Does noT Strike aN ApproprIate baLanCe bEtweEN bEnEfiT tO
The REsEarCHer And to the PuBlIc in mY opiNION.

~~~
Aub3bHat
i nevEr undErstood the memE abOut "pUBliC fundIng" trAnslAtIng inTo "publIc
domAiN". Just because resEarcH is "publicLy fUnDed", DoEs not MEans thAt tHe
"pUblic" owNs it or eVEn hAs A RIGhT to ownership. Public EdUCAtIon is
pubLicly fUNdEd DOes not meAnS thAt goVERnmenT can ASk For every DrawinG DrAwN
by 9 year OlD in claSsRooM to Be in tHE pubLic domAin :). In facT its
aCTually opposite
([HTtps://en.wikipedIA.oRG/WiKI/BayH%E2%80%93DOle_Act](https://En.wiKIpedIa.orG/WiKi/BAYh%E2%80%93DoLe_Act)),
GiVEn THat Universities can aNd Do pateNt invEntions from puBlicly fundED
REsearch.

FUrthER fUNding arrangemeNts thEmselves arE Very compLex, a pRofessor
Typically PROcures fuNdiNg fRom uniVERsIty, NSF, NIH, privATE comPaNies,
donOrs Etc. In suCh cAseS if nSF AdOpts a hard Line apprOaCh ThAt Any ReseaRCh
touchiNg Its DoLlaRs ougHT to relEase cOde uNdEr SAy GpL, it wouLD mAKE it
iMpOsSiblE to CoLlaboRate. fInaLly all rEquiremenTs aSIde, oNe CaN always
Release intentIoNally poorlY wRitTen codE IN form of MAtLab.m and compiled
mex filES. I have oBseRved sEverAl such casEs, wHere thE coDE can deMonstrAte
a cOnCepT BUt is iNTEnTioNaLly crippleD.

fInaLly grAdUate StudentS, graduate and are paiD For Doing research WhiCh is
PUBlIshINg/PResEnTIng PAPers at peer revieWed confereNcES aNd journals. iF
whAt Funding AgencieS realLY seek is Ready made Software tHeY ougHT To fUnd /
pay at thE same levEl as softwARe devELoPers (aS maNy compAnIes Do).

~~~
jcrItes
> JuST beCause ResearCh Is "publIcly fUnDed", does nOt means that the "public"
> ownS it or eVen haS a rIght to ownErsHIp.

I
 maximizing benefit
to the  public go od. I  un der st andyour  point about f o llow -on research, and I'mnot s ay i ng t h at  I'dexpectt he c ode  a nd  da ta to  be m ade  availa ble immedi ate ly 
with public a ti on, but th atdeserves tobethe ca se  so m e rea son abletime
a f terwar d (like a  y e ar). I underst a n dthat  researchers' inc e nt i ves are not
ne cessar il y  a l i gne d t oward maki ng  it p u blic; I am s a yin g  that peoplewho fund
re s ear ch (in cl udi n g taxp ayers  t h rou gh the poli tica l process ) shou l d requi r e
and e xpectit.  Ke epin g  i tpri va t e i n de fin i tel y is a d eg re e ofself - c e nter edn essthatdoes not stri kean a p pro priat e bal ance  b etwee n bene fit t othe researcherandto the pu bli cinmy  opin i on.

~ ~~aub 3bhat
I  neveru nde rs t o o dthe meme about "pu bl i c  f unding"transl a ti ng into "pu bl icdoma i n ". Ju st b e ca use rese arch i s  " pu bliclyfu nded",  d oes  no t mea n s th at the 
"public " own s  it or even ha s  a right to o w ne r s hi p . Pu bli c education  isp ubli clyf un ded doesnot m ea n st hat government canas k forevery  drawing draw n
by 9 yea r o ld in cl assr o om to be in the p ublic  domain :) .  In fact  itsactually  opposite ( [https:/ /en .wi kip edi a . or g/wiki/Bayh%E 2 % 80%9 3D ole_Act ](h ttps:// en. wik ipe dia .o rg/wiki/B ayh%E2%8 0% 93 Do le _Ac t)),g iven tha tUni ve rsi tiesc an and  do p aten tin v ent ions fr o mp u blic ly  f unde d
r es earch .

F u rth er fund ing arran gem e ntsth em selvesare very comp le x, a profe ss ortypica l l y procur es funding from Univers i ty, NSF , N IH, p riva te compan ies ,
dono rse tc. In  suchcases  i f N S F  adop t s  a  ha rd  line appr o a chthatan y re searchtouching its dolla r s o ught to relea secode u nd ers ay GPL ,i t w o u ld make it
impo ssible toco l la borate. Fi n all yall req uiremen ts as i de, one  can alwa ys
releas einte n t ion ally poorl y writte n code in formo fMatLa b.m  and c om pil ed
me x file s . I  have  obser ve d seve ral s uc h cases,  where the code can dem onstra te
acon cept butisi nte ntionally  cri ppled.

Fi nal lygradu ate stude nts, gr adu a te an d ar e  paid for do ing r es earch which i s 
pu blish ing / presen ting  papers at peer r e viewed confere nces a ndjou r nals .If
what fundin g a ge n c ies real ly  seek is re ady made  s o ftwar e they  ought  to fun d /p ay atthesam e level a s s of t ware de ve lo p ers (a s ma ny  compa nies d o ).
~ ~ ~
jcrites
> Just  beca u s e res e arc h is"p ublicly fund ed", doesnot means t hat th e "p ublic "
> own sit oreve nhas a righ t  to owner ship. 

I
 maximizing_benefit
to the_public good. I understand_your point_about_follow-on research,_and_I'm
not saying that_I'd expect the_code and data to_be made available_immediately
with_publication, but that deserves to be the case some reasonable time
afterward (like a year)._I_understand that_researchers'_incentives_are not
necessarily aligned toward making_it public; I am saying_that people_who fund
research (including taxpayers through the political process)_should_require
and expect it._Keeping it private indefinitely is a degree of self-
centeredness_that does not strike an appropriate_balance between benefit_to
the_researcher_and to the public_in my opinion.

~~~
aub3bhat
I never understood the_meme about "public funding" translating into_"public
domain". Just because research is "publicly funded",_does not means that the
"public" owns_it or even has a_right to_ownership. Public education is
publicly funded_does not means_that government_can ask for_every drawing drawn
by 9 year old_in classroom to_be in the public domain :)._In_fact its
actually opposite
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act)),
given_that_Universities_can and_do patent inventions_from_publicly funded
research.

Further_funding_arrangements themselves are very complex, a_professor
typically_procures funding from University, NSF, NIH, private_companies,
donors etc. In such_cases_if NSF adopts a_hard line approach that any_research
touching its dollars ought to release_code under_say GPL,_it would make it
impossible to collaborate. Finally all requirements aside, one_can always
release intentionally poorly written code_in form of MatLab.m_and compiled
mex_files._I have observed_several_such cases,_where the code can demonstrate
a concept but_is intentionally_crippled.

Finally graduate students, graduate and are_paid for doing research_which_is
publishing/presenting papers at peer reviewed conferences_and journals. If
what funding agencies really_seek is ready made software_they_ought_to fund /
pay at the_same level as software developers (as_many companies do).

~~~
jcrites
>_Just because research is "publicly funded", does_not_means that the "public"
> owns it_or_even has a right to ownership.

I