[kbuchanan]

This sounds wonderful; I'm super supportive. But, is there anyone who can articulate the trade-offs without the snark? Are there research groups that benefited from the revenue who will now have to raise even more funds?

What's made it take so long? (Beyond just "entrenched interests...")

[martin_a]

I think there might be conflicts where research was not only funded by the government but also companies, side by side. These "partnerships" will lose exclusivity/first mover advantage for the companies, so why should they get into that if they can just sit it out and get the results just as early as the non-paying competitors?

[dr_orpheus]

I don't know that this has an effect on mixed funding items from the government. In the acquisition structure from the government there is a delineation between what will be unlimited rights (funded fully by government), government purpose rights (GPR, mixed funding), and limited rights (company maintains proprietary information).

For GPR items they can only be shared with an NDA to the recipient of that information so I don't those would be applicable to making them public access. I think it is more addressing that the unlimited rights items will be by default public instead of being kept behind a publication or distributed "as needed".

[_Wintermute]

This only relates to papers, which would have been published anyway (just behind a paywall), so the companies aren't losing anything here.