Cambridge University is embroiled in a row with academics over
controversial plans that will give the university exploitation
rights over the software they develop during their work.
Academics claim that the university's actions, part of a plan to
boost income from intellectual property, will damage research work;
lead to an exodus of talented staff; and restrict the use of open
source software.
Under the proposals, the university will have the right to market
software developed by academics, with the profits being split
equally between the university, the department and the program
writer.
Cambridge said the move is designed to encourage academics who are
less commercially minded to exploit the results of their research
work. It will also bring in income to the university.
But academics fear that the new rules will make it harder for
university staff to share their software among themselves, damaging
research work. Currently, UK universities do not have a standard
approach to who owns the intellectual property rights to software
research by academics.
"Many people in the university make software freely available under
general public licences. This is the fastest and most efficient way
of sharing results with colleagues. This benefits all sorts of
people from linguists, who develop programs to analyse language, to
radio astronomers who analyse galaxies," said Ross Anderson, reader
in security engineering.
Anderson claimed that the university is pandering to Microsoft
chairman, Bill Gates, who has donated tens of millions of pounds to
fund scholarships and a new computer laboratory. The new rules,
Anderson said, will mean that Microsoft software will take over
from the free software favoured by academics.
"So long as a decision to put software in the public domain is
mine, I can laugh at Gates. If it's a decision of a Mr Functionary,
Microsoft software will take over. Gates will get at Mr
Functionary. Guaranteed," he said.
The university denied these claims, saying that no academic will be
forced to commercialise their software if they do not want to.
Robert Marshall, head of technology transfer, said, "There is
certainly no intention to impede academic work or to stop people
publishing their work.
"There is an assumption that the university would attempt to force
people to do something they don't want to. But we would much rather
work voluntarily," he said. "We don't want to stop people sharing
software."