I don't see how you can use the GPL software licensing model for this sort of technology. The intent is certainly appropriate here, but patent law and copyright law are not equivalent, and their differences regarding the viability of a "hardware GPL" are formidable. Once "prior art" has been established by publication, commercializati on or whatever other criteria may be required, then that technology is defined to be in the public domain and can be re-used openly.

This does not prevent people from leveraging the knowledge gained from public-domain science activities and basing their own commercial developments off of this. So long as they do not attempt to monopolize that core technology derived from public-domain sources, this does not seem to me to pose a fundamental problem for the purposes of LOS.

The key enabler, IMHO, is to create and maintain sufficient goodwill in thought and deed among contributors towards open science in order for it to perpetuate. Otherwise, it dies. I don't see how we can legislate this tree into bearing fruit; it must be nourished, and the sun must be allowed to shine on it.

@ Bob - Thank you. I am incorporating that. I incorporated the other suggestions here, too.

@ All - Now that the poster is due, I will make this blog entry less prominent. Thanks to all who helped me.

@Ecco

Wealthy Investors often want to get involved when the job is basically done, or at a point where they think that can prize away an invention for a song or by obfuscation of the capital structure of a deal.

Primary research science such as this is ideal for LOS as it is not something an investor would readily touch and they are probably vested also in its competitive technologies.

There is actually a VERY good case for investors to invest in something such as the MFMP... KNOWING that they will get no return, but that it will have a social multiplier effect and with a technology such as this, the potential for business when the basics are done is profound.

People make good money from making android smartphones and yet others from making decent cars based on the ICE.

This research is absolutely suited for crowd, private and government investment, the benefits will benefit all.

'I think you made a mistake in poster A in the middle column
"develop and share knowledge, so doing it openly and rapidly is a natural."

:)

LOS does not require all efforts to be without economic or academic returns. At least in the early days of open-source software, a major portion of the contributions came from corporate employees who were paid by their employers to contribute to the projects because that company found value in the existence and enhancement of the software. The same model may well emerge in LOS, where corporations participate voluntarily because it helps them accomplish their overall goals.

Personally, I intend to lobby for all future US public science funding to come with open-access strings attached. I don't see why we still fund researchers who are then allowed to sit on their results until they can extract whatever IP they want out of it. All taxpayer-funded research should go straight into the public domain, IMHO. This does not mean that these researchers should work for free, nor does it mean they should not publish academic papers. It may well mean that academia needs to adapt to the new reality of modern life and give up some of the closed-door mentality that it lives within now.

Relying on noblesse oblige went out 200 years ago. I will not prostitute myself to the rich. I hope the MFMP will not either.