Re: slightly off-topic: support open source for publically-funded research

[glen e. p. ropella]

Thanks *very* much, Darren.  My ignorance is being rubbed out. [grin]

As to the off-topic nature of this thread... It's not as off-topic
as might be thought.  Though I'll admit that the constitutionality
was a relatively useless digression.  Considering the importance of
open source software (a form of communication and work sharing),
the modeling space (another form of communication and work sharing),
and Swarm as a toolkit (yet another form of yaddayadda), is something
of relative importance for the SDG.

The SDG must consider things like:
o [C|Sh]ould the SDG work on proprietary contracts and use the
funds acquired (after paying the appropriate taxes) to further fund
the package?
o Why use the GPL over the LGPL?
o Should we encourage the use of the GPL over other open source
licenses?
o Is open source a stepping stone on the path to Swarm's objectives
or not?
o How should the tax deductible funds donated to the SDG be used?
etc.

This debate about the use of open source software and, in particular,
the moral imperative stating that federally funded agencies *should*
publicly license their software is very relevant to the objectives
of Swarm, the SDG, and modeling, in general.

At 11:53 AM 11/20/2001 -0800, you wrote:

> I haven't said anything on this topic yet, but I think I am probably one 
> of the few lawyers on this listserve.  For an act of Congress or a federal 
> agency to be unconstitutional, it has to do basically one of two things.
>
> 1.  Not be within the enumerated powers of Congress or the federal government.
>
> 2.  Violate some right listed in the Constitution or amendments.
>
> Now, the necessary and proper clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) has 
> been interpreted to Congress the authority to do most things it wants to 
> regarding the appropriation of federal funding.  And, Article I, Section 
> 8, Clause 1, gives the Congress the power to law and collect taxes to pay 
> the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the 
> US.  So, we don't have a limitation of powers issue here.
>
> And, I can't think of any particular right (remember that there has to be 
> some right specified in the Constitution) that would be violated by such 
> limitations on the use of funds.
>
> Therefore, constitutionality is not an issue.
>
> The notion of citizen's consent to taxation and government is important in 
> a theoretical sense to US government, but we don't live in a direct 
> democracy where we vote every governmental law, rule, and regulation up or 
> down.  We have representatives who make laws and agencies to make policy 
> etc.  We consent to the law by electing our representatives and remaining 
> within the jurisdiction of the country.
>
> This is obviously off-off topic, but I thought maybe it would end the 
> debate on the constitutional issue.

=><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><=
The competent hawk hides its claws.       =><=        Hail Eris!
glen e. p. ropella   =><=   H:831.335.4950  =><=  C:650.776.4616



                 ==================================
  Swarm-Modelling is for discussion of Simulation and Modelling techniques
  esp. using Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp. [un]subscribing),
  please send a message to <address@hidden> with "help" in the
  body of the message.
                 ==================================