"this is how you should protect the intellectual property that can be extracted from your research before transferring it to an economic actor" bullshit, utter bullshit, i will leak every single bit of code i write, i will slap the GPLv3 on it to make it radioactive to patent lawyers, i will leak my own papers to scihub. fight me.
i am sorry i am once again forced through an online class that's teaching me how much being a phd student is like being an entrepreneur and i should really extract value out of my research and-
if anyone in the administration of my university is reading this: hi, please do something about the heating in our building, it's embarrassingly disparate from one office to the other. thank you.
i went into public research because the culture and incentive of tech companies, especially those you're pushed into as a young engineering graduate, is nauseating, and frontally clashes with my personal values. in retrospect it was naive to think i could escape most of that culture by going into research (especially considering my main supervisor's attitude), but seeing the active sabotage by our neolib government of research to turn it into a patent-producing startup factory makes my blood boil even more;
there's nowhere safe from the capitalist brain; you must burn a startup company if you aspire to have any tangible impact in this world
i aspire to be the nightmare of corporate research; i will devalue the economy of your lab, i will purposely sabotage its value. research should be free. the taxpayer is literally paying us, they're literally paying me and the goddamn hardware i am writing this on. my shitty Linux fork should be printed and available in every single town hall, and so should be your shitty unoptimized ML algorithm.
When writing about any topic, it's important to say what you mean and not something else.
You seem to be encouraging the carrying out of unauthorized copying, which is not theft and typically is legal unless the form of copying is prohibited and in that case the act is copyright infringement.
>i will slap the GPLv3 on it to make it radioactive to patent lawyers The GPLv3 isn't radioactive to patent lawyers as it allocates patent license(s) (if applicable) in a much fairer way than a typical proprietary license.
Nevertheless, that free software license is an excellent choice as long as you make sure to license GPLv3-or-later and add adequate notices to the top of each nontrivial source file (this is really best practice for every license, not just the GPLv3+).
Mind you, the AGPLv3-or-later is even better.
>also yes everything i make is technically under copyright for my employer (my university) Unless you signed a contract (arguably only fair contracts that aren't signed under duress are valid) that assigns all of your copyrights to your employer, then your copyrights are yours, no matter what your employer claims.
Merely because you are employed by someone doesn't mean your copyrights are surrendered - it's only if a certain activity counts as a work for hire or if another agreement has been reached that the employer receives the copyrights.
I speak of "sharing" (Nobody can be opposed to sharing, right?).
I also believe there can not be a thing such as intellectual "property", there's just copyrights, patents and trademarks. That's all it is, it's not even close to physical property.