[FRIAM] Book publishing advice needed

[Frank Wimberly]

John Pople not John People.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 7:39 AM Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Carnegie Mellon's intellectual property policy was described in a ~50 page
> summary  document when I worked there.  But it was apparently more
> complicated than that.  I had to testify in Federal Court regarding
> software that had been developed by chemistry professor and Nobel Laureate
> John People and his students.  A company named Gaussian Inc was selling the
> software and one of my tasks was to keep the version made available by the
> Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center current. PSC is jointly operated  by CMU
> and Pitt and it makes supercomputers and software available to
> researchers.  The simplified understanding was that any artifact created by
> CMU researchers could be sold commercially but that the University could
> not be charged for its use.  When I asked for Gaussian 94 (a new version
> was released every two years) the company stalled for weeks and eventually
> said we had to buy it.  To shorten the story, after months of litigation
> and just before the judge was to issue his ruling, an out-of-court
> settlement was reached which was confidential.  IP is a complex area.
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 7:05 AM ∄ uǝlƃ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Continuing down the open access thread and the ethics of Schwartz' JSTOR
>> theft, libgen, and sci-hub:
>>
>> Retractions and controversies over coronavirus research show that the
>> process of science is working as it should
>>
>> https://theconversation.com/retractions-and-controversies-over-coronavirus-research-show-that-the-process-of-science-is-working-as-it-should-140326
>>
>> From the article: "The database provided by the tiny company Surgisphere
>> – whose website is no longer accessible – was unavailable during peer
>> review of the paper or to scientists and the public afterwards, preventing
>> anyone from evaluating the data."
>>
>> The point I made in response to EricS's worry that emphasizing paper
>> consumption over book consumption was that the paper publishing process is
>> more agile and, I argue, can stick more closely to the referent(s). With
>> that agility comes some of the criticisms of Science™ (as well-expressed by
>> Dave recently). To my mind, those criticisms target the wrong thing.
>> They're failures of us to understand that there is no unified scientific
>> method [†] and, along with *openness* comes an understanding that the whole
>> process is messy and intensely social. I think it was Randy Burge who used
>> to repeat a mantra like "Not being right, but getting it right." That
>> journals (as well as newspapers) don't *require* open source and open data
>> at the outset boggles me.
>>
>> Coincidentally, this popped up in my queue the other day:
>>
>> Let's talk about why people are moving left....
>> https://youtu.be/2g0qUxgwHmo
>>
>> Ed's story about authors seeing very little compensation for their work,
>> Nick's plea for a way to harvest the minds of non-academics, the ethics of
>> Schwartz' theft, are all *old* issues targeting the same problems with late
>> stage capitalism now being targeted by BLM and antifa. Perhaps the
>> incentive and motive systems are the causes; and outcomes like libgen are
>> the symptoms.
>>
>>
>> [†] I'm currently (slowly, as usual) reading a nice little book called
>> "Ignorance" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13574594-ignorance that
>> makes this point nicely. I put the book down in disgust when he started
>> yapping about quantum mechanics. Why does everyone always do that even if
>> they admit upfront they don't know what they're talking about? [sigh]
>> Anyway, I got over it and have started again.
>>
>> On 7/7/20 4:59 AM, Edward Angel wrote:
>> > I have to negotiate the terms with the university, I can, however, make
>> anything I develop open source. It took a while for universities to agree
>> that that that decision is totally up to the faculty member.
>> --
>> ☣ uǝlƃ
>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
>> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200707/c8da7107/attachment.html>