[22162] in Athena Bugs

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Thesis template change concerns

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Tue May 20 01:31:10 2003

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 01:31:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200305200531.BAA23569@multics.mit.edu>
To: bugs@MIT.EDU
cc: Laura Baldwin <boojum@MIT.EDU>, fuzzballs@MIT.EDU
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>

Hi, all.

	Could someone please update /mit/thesis/README to reflect
reality? In particular:

.	It cites bugs@ATHENA.MIT.EDU, which presumably blackholes.
.	It was last updated in 4/18/1997, but there have been a number of
	significant changes to files in /mit/thesis/tex/ since then.

Of somewhat more timely import, recently, with little fanfair, on the
12th of May a change was made for \documentclass[vi] to no longer be
present in the sample thesis (main.tex).

Apparently intended to represent Course 6 vs. not-Course 6, [vi]
provides a copyright assigned to the author of the thesis, and
omitting [vi] assigns copyright to the Institute.

Can you please explain why this change was made, and at whose behest?

I think the lack of fanfair is a bit disturbing. While this will not
cause the copyrights of in-progress theses to change out from under
their authors, it is potentially quite confusing to people who expect
main.tex to behave a particular way, and to groups or people who
maintain instructions on how to use the thesis template (e.g.
department-specific instructions).

"http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/thesis-specs/#copy" appears to be
one of the reference sources for information on the copyright of MIT
theses (all such sources say the same thing or refer to each other, I
believe), and seems to clearly indicate that the criteria for
copyright are not department-dependant.

Furthermore, as the text is structured as "the Institute will hold
ownership of copyright to theses ONLY IF: ... IN ALL OTHER CASES,
ownership of copyright shall reside with the student." [emphasis
mine], it seems to me that it is appropriate for the default of the
template to cover that general case, not the specific exceptions that
follow it.


While I would welcome a restructuring of the template to divorce the
copyright option from Course 6, I don't think making MIT hold the
copyright by default is appropriate. The Institute has not acquitted
itself well with respect to the handling of intellectual property
where students are concerned, (cf. "Drafting a Better Patent Policy
for Students", by Professor Amar G. Bose '51, published in {The Tech}
on 28 Sep 1999,
"http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N45/col45guest.45c.html"; the situation
has not improved since then, as far as I can tell) and students should
not be encouraged to assign copyright to the Institute beyond the
minimum degree necessary. I think the authors of the MIT policy on the
subject were aware of such concerns, and the text I quote above
appears to be written with consistent with them.

The two specific criteria listed in the rules are:

|    1.  the thesis research is performed in whole or in part by the
|        student with financial support in the form of wages, salary,
|        stipend, or grant from funds administered by the Institute

While I don't have the details on financial support from the
Institute, I don't believe there have been any changes herein, and I
think it would be inappropriate to presume that there is monetary
support for thesis research from the Institute, as a general rule.

|    2. the thesis research is performed in whole or in part utilizing
|       equipment or facilities provided to the Institute under
|       conditions that impose copyright restrictions.

It is accounted to be clearly held that the use of Athena or the
thesis template does not constitute significant use of Institute
facilities or equipment, nor do those facilities and equipment impose
copyright restrictions. If this is in fact the sticking point, I would
be happy to go and do some further research on the subject.



From where I sit, it looks like the default should be reverted back as
it was, and perhaps a restructuring to seperate the copyright policy
from the Department may be in order, though that is mostly aesthetic.

Thanks.

--jhawk

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post