Using open source to direct self interest?
I wish I had been at the Open Source Buiness Conference, being held in London right now. Yesterday's
talk by Simon Phipps (Sun) does not seem radical, but it sounds like he got some reactions from the crowd that were not as favorable.
The message, at least as recorded by one media outlet, was that open source developers should release code that preserves what is needed for broader purposes (eg to build other code on) and for "directed self-interest". I do not perceive this as radical because many open source developers work for companies who contribute their code to enable buiness for their company. I imagine there is some amount of pure creativity going on, but others cite how contributing open source code is also a way to "get known" in the community. . .which is also directed self-interest.
I would love to see more community organization for open source code, and concerted efforts to develop what "needs" to be developed. . but I'm not sure what
more is needed, and curious what role Phipps sees for individuals (unaffiliated with a company) in his new vision. I'll need to check out other accounts of this talk, or perhaps watch how Sun releases Java -- if it is done in such a way to enable Phipps' vision.
Technology transfer update
Several recent articles make it appear (or at least can be read) that academic technology transfer's sole goal is to make money. See
here and
here, and there are more.
It is difficult to fight the stereotypes: "When you're interested in pure science, you don't start companies. That's just not what you do.'' Many scientists are interested in seeing their work have a public impact, and one possibility for that impact is to start companies. Everyone doesn't have to start a company, but bold statements like the above seem inappropriate. There are many ways to be faculty, to be a technology transfer professional, etc.
Sometimes states seem to get it. I'd love to be in Massachusetts right now, with this
legislation. Investment into a state "sales force", the technology transfer center, research, etc. But it is never as good in person as it is on paper. Note to check in on it in a few years. Or one could even be in
Ireland. Gosh, who doesn't get this?
Future of academic publishing
I missed the forum earlier this week at UC Berkeley on the future of scholarly publishing, which is sad (for me). The Center for New Media put it together with the financial & speaking support of Elsevier, and it was good to see the discussion happen. Given the discussion in Congress about whether or not scholarship which is supported with federal funds ought to be made available six months after scholarly publication, what happens to journals is an open question. . maybe someday there will be an answer.
Good to see some
press coverage, as how scholars communicate -- both using informal & formal fashions, formal & informal results -- is critical. How do scholars "replicate" or "add onto" the information? How do companies take the information and integrate it? These are questions for the next forum.
