Bill Gates a champion for openness!?

[monkeybrain20122]

I have to reread this a few times to make sure that I read that right

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is committed to information sharing and transparency. We believe that published research resulting from our funding should be promptly and broadly disseminated. We have adopted an Open Access policy that enables the unrestricted access and reuse of all peer-reviewed published research funded, in whole or in part, by the foundation, including any underlying data sets....

All publications shall be published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License (CC BY 4.0) or an equivalent license. This will permit all users of the publication to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and transform and build upon the material, including for any purpose (including commercial) without further permission or fees being required.

http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs...ccess-3589444/

I never thought I would say this, but well done. Bill Gates deserves a lot of kudos for this. In the mean time, shame on Nature.

[coldcritter64]

I have to reread this a few times to make sure that I read that right

Yeah same here for the thread title.
You should consider dropping the exclamation mark in the title OP.
Had to read the quote twice while wondering how Bill was being a champion for openssl.
Openness ... ... that makes more sense.

[vasa1]

... Bill gates deserves a lot of kudos for this. ...

public relations

[monkeybrain20122]

public relations

Maybe, but the benefit is real, the spirit is as 'open source' as you want (Creative Commons License). On the other hand Nature's ploy is pure PR.

[grahammechanical]

After all, a move of this magnitude would surely only have been made if Bill Gates approved, which indicates that he, too, has begun to appreciate the power of openness.

Not necessarily so. It is a foundation. It might be named after Bill and his wife, but that does not mean it is administered by them. Not only that but as a foundation it should not be possible for those who endow the foundation to receive profits back from it. To put it another way, there is not financial profit in it for him.

What is Bill Gates view of Openness when it comes to putting commercial profit at risk, or lessening a monopoly market share of a business he owns? After all, business is business. Is that not a more likely attitude for Bill Gates to have?

Thinking about it, I would give more credit to his wife, Melinda, for bringing about any change in Bill, than Bill himself seeing the error of his ways.

Regards.

[monkeybrain20122]

Not necessarily so. It is a foundation. It might be named after Bill and his wife, but that does not mean it is administered by them. Not only that but as a foundation it should not be possible for those who endow the foundation to receive profits back from it. To put it another way, there is not financial profit in it for him.

What is Bill Gates view of Openness when it comes to putting commercial profit at risk, or lessening a monopoly market share of a business he owns? After all, business is business. Is that not a more likely attitude for Bill Gates to have?

Thinking about it, I would give more credit to his wife, Melinda, for bringing about any change in Bill, than Bill himself seeing the error of his ways.

Regards.

But I think Bill has a philosophical problem with the concept of open access whether it affects his profits or not. He has been more idealogical about it than most people who simply try to make a buck by close sourcing their own products. That's why I find it surprising.

[bashiergui]

Sharing and transparency is limited to the work product of the foundation. It doesn't extend to all of Microsoft. I also see this more as public relations than an earth-shattering shift for MS.

[mikodo]

Sharing and transparency is limited to the work product of the foundation. It doesn't extend to all of Microsoft. I also see this more as public relations than an earth-shattering shift for MS.

I don't see the foundation and it's open license, having much to do with Microsoft. It appears, Gates is selling his Microsoft ownership shares. What he does with this money, is not too representative of Microsoft. An article on Gate's selling of shares of Microsoft.

[monkeybrain20122]

Sharing and transparency is limited to the work product of the foundation. It doesn't extend to all of Microsoft. I also see this more as public relations than an earth-shattering shift for MS.

It has nothing to do with MS, nor is it implied. But it is very positive for open access of scientific research.

[vasa1]

It has nothing to do with MS, nor is it implied. But it is very positive for open access of scientific research.

I find the title of this thread quite inappropriate. One swallow doesn't make a summer. Giving open access to your achievements is PR. Sponsored scientific research has a history of being tainted.

How wrong is it to say that most people still associate Bill Gates with MS?

This gimmick will have negligible impact on open access to scientific research. Even if it does, it's going to be difficult to prove that it was responsible.

Nature's move is purely business couched in weasel words.