We had seven projects in DARPA POSH and one in IDEA. DARPA did not fund a single one of them. I'm afraid it's because they think we will self exploit ourselves like always and develop that stuff "for free" anyways. 1/4
-
-
Maybe with a clause that makes it proper (BSD-style) open source after 8 years. Afaict this is the only course of action that would make sense given the incentives that seem to be at work here. 3/4
Show this thread -
We would of course offer reasonably priced licenses for this kinds of applications. If organisation like DARPA are not funding our work directly, then we have to try to cover our costs by charging the projects that get funded (or not do the projects at all). 4/4 cc
@adaptevaShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Could you just use a license tweaked to meet the FOSS definitions but still showstoppingly odious to those sectors? Same way GPL works on many industries.
-
Or is the issue that they don't need to ship it or modified versions, just use it in-house & ship the output?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The only thing to be careful of is a wording to ensure hobbyist/small scale applications aren't excluded - you don't want to put off a university team building a CubeSat for example.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wouldn't the attribution clause of many OSS licenses be a deterrent in those fields? I figure J. Random Manager would balk at having to reveal anything about their project. Either they don't follow the license, in obscurity, or they acknowledge your work.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.