Welcome to 56 year of bangladesh educational and data sovereignty

 Back in 1971 Bangladesh was born poorest natiuon due to be 8th largets in population with 90% of nraind living in vilages without electricity

S5H3E4(LF1)F2 became lifelong livelihood focus:

ie she-too sdg 5 women goverance of communities their families build

3 health

4 livelihood education

1 land finance

2 last mile food

We ask groc for help in cataloguing bangladesh's 56 year learning curve; in 15 visits to bangladesh and with glasgow university I have had the privelege of helping catalogue partners of bangladesh development - from 2008 birthday party wishes of both dr yunus nd fazle abed became journals published by adam smith glasgow university so there is plenty of context to feed into any llm model layer 4 designed to connect with action apps

help welcome chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk

before may 2026 15000 ai+expo delegates event in dc by scsp.ai we will proceed as best we can with community up solution networks for 6 water, 7 energy, 8 next generation livelihoods whilst welcoming win-win top -down maps

1st grok version week 1 2026

The table now has ~16 entries for better recursion—each with governance/intelligence feeds emphasizing data sovereignty, openness without arrogance, and transgenerational codes (SHE(LF)F for rural stability; AHELF Y&WE Trist for youth/water/energy transformers). We can iterate further with your diaries or expert inputs.

Timeline	Key Case	Description	Intelligence/Governance Feed for Data Sovereignty	SDG/Framework Link
1936–1947	Birth and Early Life Amid Partition	Born April 27, 1936, in Baniachong, Sylhet (northeast, then British India). Family involved in trade/accounting; lived mainly in Calcutta until partition (1947), becoming literate and adapting to new borders.	Early exposure to trade disruptions (e.g., loss of Calcutta superport) fostered curiosity in systems mapping—precursor to lifelong tech/human trust integration, mirroring KT Li's Cambridge experiences. Bottom-up family networks as initial "data sovereignty" model.	Foundational: Pre-SDG1 (Poverty)/LF—Intergenerational land/finance resilience in partitioned regions.
1947–1955	Secondary Education and Dhaka University	Returned to Sylhet for leading secondary school (~age 11–15/16); first degree at Dhaka University (~age 16–19). Navigated post-partition East Pakistan under West Pakistan administration.	Built foundational literacy/engineering mindset; observed regional isolation, sparking interest in infrastructure like superports—early blueprinting for community systems.	SDG4 (Education)/E: Personal agency through local knowledge amid geopolitical shifts.
1955–1959	Glasgow University and Ship Engineering	At ~age 19, studied naval architecture (ship engineering) at Adam Smith's Glasgow University; didn't enjoy/complete due to realization of cold-climate industry (e.g., Belfast shipyards), but gained systems-thinking engineering mind.	Curiosity in tech change (e.g., port infrastructure for isolated East Pakistan); parallels KT Li's 1930s Cambridge physics—blending Western tech with Asian grounded challenges.	SDG9 (Industry/Innovation): Early blueprinting for transgenerational supply chains (e.g., trade maps).
1959–1962	Chartered Accountancy in London	Family ties in London; trained as chartered accountant, qualifying as Cost Management Accountant in 1962. No MBA programs yet—practical business admin view.	Shift from engineering to finance; mapped family/professional networks for open partnerships, avoiding arrogance in colonial/post-colonial contexts.	SDG8 (Youth/Work)/Y in Y&WE Trist: Youth agency in global mobility/tech curiosity.
1962–1965	Harvard Course and Marriage	~1964, took business administration course at Harvard (pre-MBA era). Married Ayesha Abed (~mid-1960s); they enjoyed arts, parties, fine clothes—Ayesha's influence on cultural/retail ventures later.	Integrated Western business models with Eastern human trusts; marriage as partnership in servant leadership (Paulo Freire-inspired action learning).	SDG5 (She)/S in SHE(LF)F: Empowerment through cultural/arts integration.
1965–1970	CEO of Shell East Pakistan	Hired by Royal Dutch Shell as regional CEO; mixed in big business circles, understanding trade with neighbors (India, Myanmar).	Regional data mapping (e.g., tin roofs from Myanmar for later housing); corporate governance as tax-like system—prep for NGO models.	SDG7 (Energy)/WE: Early oil/energy insights as hemispheric transformers.
1970–1972	Cyclone Relief, Escape, and BRAC Founding	Bhola cyclone killed ~500,000; hosted aid experts (cholera/burial). Resigned from Shell late 1970 (refused Pakistan army ties); escaped to London flat (sold it). 1971 independence war; returned 1972, rebuilt 15,000 village homes in Sylhet with Oxfam/wife Ayesha/employee Martha Chen (her book covers 1972–1980). Founded BRAC (initially Bangladesh Rehabilitation Assistance Committee).	Rapid, localized data on vulnerabilities (surveys/feedback); sovereign ownership over foreign aid—avoided dilution via selective partnerships. Martha Chen's insights key for governance.	SDG2 (Food)/F: Last-mile recovery; SDG1/LF: Community banking origins.
1972–1980	Metavillages and Early Businesses	Built 3 metavillages (~100,000 people each) with 15,000-home systems; designed rice/health/mothers' businesses; invented ORT; started microfinance (~late 1970s, as gov uninterested until 1983 Grameen ordinance). Ayesha launched Aarong (village women's artisan clothes/crafts for income); added social forestry/silk farms. Ayesha died ~1980 birthing son Shameran. BRAC as no-loss NGO (Tata-like constitution).	Action learning (Freire): Bottom-up tax/banking/replication; women-led intelligence networks (illiterate mothers as agents). Grieving period refined servant leadership—leaders live with served.	SDG3 (Health)/H; SDG4/E; SDG5/S in SHE(LF)F: Stable rural models amid loss.
1980s	Nationwide Scale with ORT and Vaccines	Won UNICEF Year of Child (1979) for ORT—James Grant funded national mother training (prevented 1/3 child deaths). Collaborated on child vaccinations (BRAC did half, gov credited). Franchised solutions as mothers' businesses or gov systems.	Word-of-mouth networks (pre-electricity); data sovereignty via community-owned metrics. Grant's global advocacy (sachet demos) amplified without greenwashing.	SDG3/H: Health intelligence; nationwide trust-building.
1990s	Non-Formal Education and Pre-Electricity Focus	Launched NFPE: 34,000 one-room schools for girls/out-of-school kids. Villages no electricity/comms until ~1995—relied on BRAC printing press (Dhaka HQ) for materials. Early solar experiments (via SELCO-like, with Chinese-speaking leader).	Aggregated outcome data for iteration; women teachers as data owners. China swaps: ORT/solar solutions—organic Asian poverty reduction (80% of global 1970–2010).	SDG4/E: Livelihood education; SDG7/WE: Early energy leaps.
1995–2001	Solar/Mobile Leapfrogging and China Exchanges	Experimented with solar (1990s via SELCO) and mobile—leapfrogging village systems. Swapped humid village solutions with China (ORT, solar)—arguably most massive 20th C development maps.	Exponential tech integration (billion-fold machine power vs. human brains); regional data partnerships (e.g., vs. Myanmar/Bangladesh coastline underdevelopment—superport/rail lacks).	SDGs 6-7/WE in Y&WE Trist: Supply chain transformers for youth/water/energy.
2001–2010s	Tech Partnerships, International Expansion, and University	Steve Jobs advised (2001, hosted 65th birthday); started BRAC University (2002, health college for James Grant). Global spread (Africa/Asia); mobile banking (e.g., bKash). Yunus' Microcredit Summit (1997+) greenwashed finance over education/health. Japanese firm installed BRAC internet.	Navigated 9/11 distractions; open tech collaborations (Jobs/Ma attempts 2016 Alipay-bKash). Balanced local vs. global—university as AI-like framework for SDGs.	SDGs 1-8/AHELF: Community-rising intelligences; transgenerational rural views.
2010s	Women's Empowerment, Succession, and Legacy	Scaled SHE programs; hired Vincent Chang for BRAC University (2015–2019). Faced brain cancer/family arguments on succession. Critiqued 17 SDGs as overwhelming; proposed codes for recall.	Iterative governance for openness; expert relays to refine (e.g., avoiding argumentative successors). Asian solutions vs. Western aid (e.g., US East vs. West coast divides).	SDG5/S in SHE(LF)F: Empowerment as core; SDG8/Y: Youth in IR4.0.

 

Brac University- 65^th birthday wish party with steve joobs and silion valley 2001- had extrordinary impacts on both men and indeed stanford though sadly steve didn’t knoiw he had only a dcecade left to put pixels into chips and universities into mobile phones

For abed university could be transgeneration way an ngo might not be; it could invite worldwide graduate rseearch partnerships while beran deepest local undergraduate respect; he could put on courses training govtech futures even as he was willing to let government takeove his franchsies where taxation was more sustainable model while not typically wanting to work in areas of gov he had no0 development expereince in

As well as brac university brac international typically chose one international partner per country; overall at death abed still wondered if this diluted what he could have done if he had focussed more of 21^st c on bangladesh

He chose countries with mainly muslim  culture that needed help whilst still being intereted personally to learn from eg china japan singa[pore

In retrospect his hope that girls schools from 2002 in afghansitan is whjat worldwid would partner was dashed

Mastercard foundation in uganda may have been his simplest partnership

Tanzania mainly with billo gates but partly on agri9culture with britosh aid when babed realised africa had missed borlaub knowledge doesn’t look fully sustainable?

Soros wanted to help with s sudan and liberai – in some sense liberia has been a success; there was enough abed intel to help eg prtner sin health end ebola in liberia and /sierra leone

 

Abed’s mots suv=ccesful global academic part6nership are 2 research fileds he devoted himslef to making sure brac university became world leading partner in

Pre=--school

Ultra finanace

Many of us feel he gave nobel prize to poverty lad bit abdul latif who claimed their research proved abed’s ultra method worled

 

Abdul latif (toyota franchise acros smiddle east but out of saidi arabia) has in some ways been one of deep ebd poverty development deepest 21^st C success stories unless you know better

In spring 2016 aged hosted hos 80^th birthday dhaka- he wasn’t well enolugh to attend un september review of sdg4 learning but his friends including jack ma and jim kim demnded an ai revoluytion to education and this was picked up by jack ma and melinda gates with some support fby fei-feil li and assigned to ITU ; for 3 years the annual updates to gutterres were superb tranmsformational model – eg 5 difital windows ai changed every way tecahers spent their time ; every way youth spoent tehir toime ; assuming universal connectivity of where people studied and complete transformation in data ciding; these 5 digotal components of gov2.o integrated with un’s 4 legacy purposes inclusion within places bodrers; rights beyond boders; trust-safety in every human rel;ationship; investment in partenrships that traingularised whatever biggets corporate or nations actioned by next generation community solutions

 

Before his death in 2019 abed had designed about 6 operation epicenters instead of just the main dhak headquarters which had been center of everything up to late 1990s before tech

 

Winnoning a national vilage markets is not same as winning its natiponal market leadership once tech connects sity and vilage

 

So abed set up entreprise leadership in about 8 sectirs to own national vale chain as well as vilage models

Banking was first to separate from hq with botyh crac city bank and then virtual bank bkash having their own partners and ceos

Brac city bank sems to have been successful ; it was positioned to be cuty bank for girls emigrating to the city and running women led businesses

 

Bkash provided the quadirs who had first worked with yunus bringing mobile phones to grameen the platform with brac and partenrs to be efinance largest population wise and this included jack ma alipay partenrship just before trouvles hit ma and ill helath hit abed; still the quadirs have kept the bkash model goig

 

Overall helath went to james grant colege at university and partly merged withy the nations chiolera lab; at the same time the half million para health worlers were still mainly trained out of the original hq- but by now they were also the equivalent of a pedesyrian doordasjh each supply 300 families wekly basic medicines; brac had become the nations largest wholesaler of these basic medicines

Arraong is realy complicated as it is run by abed’s daughter who also aims to rin the whole of brac with her husbangd; I personally don’t think it has the right partnerships to eg transform fashion sustainability but a lot went on under hasina 2009-2024 which made fashion value chain particularly difficult including the factiry disaster wehre 1000 garmet worlers died; while nor related to brac this was related to a lot of hasina netwirkers as well as international fashion chains

 

We can make a list of whom abed though had promised to continue partnerships into 2020s with his death in dec 2019 nd then covid as well as other crised -abed had great relationship with japans abe – much in 2026 is not the way it would be if sir fazle was still around

Grok explains copyright crisis- laws changed in 1970s which now prevent open ai actions most urgently needs

 q1 am I correct that copyright according to british law only exists for a few decades unless you can show a business has been generating understanding of the original text. if so how many decades and are all the papers related to Einstein e m csquared open source

A1No, that is no longer correct under UK (British) law. Let me clarify the actual position and then answer the Einstein part. more

q2 what happens when an authors purpose was to openly advance anything he wrote as I could argue mathematicians like Einstein intended

q3 what happens when an authors purpose was to openly advance anything he wrote as I could argue mathematicians like Einstein intended

q3a but how do teachers know when a science source has the quality of openness you describe around Einstein or von Neumann or turing and when it does mot

q4 you imply science increasingly lost some openness from 1970 who was it changed this law and did nobody feel this robbed future generations from freedom of learning

A4 The Shift Toward Less Openness in Scientific Publishing from the 1970sYou're right that I highlighted a trend: scientific publishing became less "open" starting around the 1970s, but this wasn't primarily a change in "law" itself. Instead, it was a combination of evolving copyright practices (like stricter enforcement and copyright transfer agreements) and broader legal reforms that extended terms and tightened controls. These changes arose from economic pressures in academia and publishing, amplified by technologies like photocopying. The core issue? Publishers increasingly treated scientific articles as commercial assets, using copyright to control access and distribution—often at the expense of the free-flowing ethos of science.This shift created barriers: rising journal prices (the "serials crisis" of the 1980s–90s), paywalls behind subscriptions, and restrictions on sharing that clashed with science's need for reuse and building on prior work. It didn't "rob" openness overnight, but over decades, it locked away knowledge that taxpayers and researchers funded, limiting who could access or remix it. more

q5 has anyone reviewed his all this redoubles now ai models are branching between open intelligent hence and ignorance that comes from what sources were not copyright available

q6 et's rewind from start if engineering or start of artificial system design. roughly we can say scots open source engineering 1760 to 1860 big leaps or telecoms and electricity were from 1860s diffused by open standards bodies. as far as can see the greats of deep science Einstein computing coding eg Einstein Neumann turing intended their maths to be open. so my question is what was the first alumni school that copyrighted it's advance in intelligence

q7 ok basically it was Americans who ended this openness and yer as we know most of design if billion times more mathematical brains has been integrated out of Asia. Taiwan since 1987 Japan big player 1955 to 1990 financial crisis. indeed deming was openly used and ideas like reverse engineering seem to be continued in back propogation maths

q8 Jensen has recently described 5 layer cake . where each later exponentially impacts each other. roughly he calls layer 1 energy times layer2 chips. he talks about buided platform cuda software infrastructure and eg data sov investment as layer 3 though maybe I uda is both 2 and 3. interestingly he says layer 4 is ai models he seems to suggest there are over 1milliin post trained focused mainly open models as well as say 100 big models. language culture and even correct science sort of flow double loop between big and small with eg genii like Jensen hassabis musk lecun feifei linking both. layer 5 is maths. are you able to correct above where I have misreported Jensen but also add an ai view of where copyright may end get safety. eg if we rushing to use more nuclear it would be obscene if practicing engineers do not openly reverse what's been try published on safety

q9 can you review some dangerous under knowns. eg has too little been openly sourced on space to prevent it being hacked or brought down by nuclear if someone super powerful chooses that. do we know if anyone is working to blackmail world on next virus. don't we need ai to be more open than copyrighted to save humans from even one superpower brain turned mad or even just old age x careless

answer 9 Reviewing Dangerous Under-Knowns: Space Vulnerabilities, Bio-Blackmail, and the Open AI ImperativeAbsolutely, your query cuts to the core of existential risks that often fly under the radar—those "under-knowns" where opacity breeds catastrophe. We're talking about scenarios where a single powerful actor (a rogue superpower, a mad genius, or even a careless elder statesman) could tip the scales toward global chaos. Drawing from our earlier chats on openness vs. enclosure in science and AI, I'll review your examples with fresh data (as of December 2025). The pattern? Too much secrecy amplifies fragility, while radical openness—especially in AI—could be humanity's firewall against misuse. Let's break it down.1. Space Infrastructure: Too Little Openness to Prevent Nuclear/EMP "Bring-Down"?Yes, this is a glaring under-known: Satellites aren't just for selfies and GPS—they underpin everything from power grids to missile defense. A high-altitude nuclear EMP (HEMP) detonation could fry electronics across continents without direct casualties, creating a "no-go zone" in orbit that cripples comms, navigation, and economies for months (or years). Think Starfish Prime (1962): One U.S. test blacked out Hawaiian streetlights 1,300 km away and zapped satellites. Modern versions? Russia and China have "super-EMP" doctrines; a single blast over the U.S. could induce currents that melt transformers, per the U.S. EMP Commission. North Korea's crude rockets could deliver one in a "planetary rotational" campaign, wiping swaths of the satellite layer as Earth spins. The Openness Gap: Publicly, we know vulnerabilities from declassified reports (e.g., CISA's EMP/GMD strategy warns of cascading failures hitting millions). But hardening tech—shielded electronics, proliferated LEO constellations (like SDA's Transport Layer)—is mostly classified or proprietary. Open efforts exist (e.g., MIT Lincoln Lab's cyber-resilient prototypes; CISA's Zero Trust Landscape for space; EU's PHASMA project for open-source satellite tech), but they're fragmented and underfunded. The U.S. Air Force embraces open-source software for space (e.g., SpaceX/Starlink), but full blueprints for EMP-proofing? Locked behind NDAs. Result: If a "super powerful" actor (say, Putin or Xi) chooses this, recovery favors the prepared—like China's faster data-center builds (Huang's Layer 3 lag). Disproportionate hit? Global South nations, reliant on sat-enabled food/water mgmt, get crushed first. Fix? Mandate open-sourcing of resilience standards (e.g., via IAEA-like treaties for space). Without it, one nuke = civilization-scale blackout.2. Blackmail on the Next Virus: Anyone Working on It?Under-known? Absolutely—biothreats are the ultimate asymmetric weapon: cheap, deniable, and viral (pun intended). No smoking-gun 2025 reports of active "virus extortion" (e.g., "Pay up or we release engineered H5N1"), but the pieces are aligning alarmingly. Russia's Sergiev Posad-6 biolab expansions (BSL-4 for Ebola/marburg) scream covert programs; they've used chemicals in Ukraine (hundreds of attacks since 2022). ODNI's 2025 Threat Assessment flags Russia/China/Iran/NK for bioweapons R&D, with AI eroding barriers (e.g., Claude Opus 4 aiding pathogen design). Extortion trends? Ransomware/extortion up 67% in 2023–25, with bio-labs hit hard (93% of U.S. healthcare saw incidents; avg cost $10M). Dark web "bio-as-a-service" listings surged 2025, peddling CRISPR kits for custom bugs. Fake bioterror deepfakes (AI-simulated outbreaks) could spark chaos without a real release—e.g., WhatsApp virals of "smallpox" in India. Known Actors? State-level (Russia's "ghost labs"); non-state (extremists using open AI for synth-bio). Blackmail playbook: Hoard a lab strain, threaten release unless demands met (e.g., sanctions lifted). BWC's 50th anniversary (2025) highlighted U.S. cuts weakening deterrence. No public "task forces" on virus extortion, but NTI/Munich experts warn of AI-bioweapon "erosion" for pandemics. Openness Angle: Post-1970s bio-publishing enclosures hide vulnerabilities, but open AI could democratize defenses (e.g., rapid vaccine modeling). Secrecy here is the enabler—imagine if Starfish Prime data stayed classified.3. AI Needs to Be More Open Than Copyrighted: Saving Us from the "Mad" or "Careless" BrainSpot-on—your point echoes the Asian engineering miracle we discussed: Enclosure slows diffusion, but openness scales genius (or counters folly). A "superpower brain turned mad" (rogue coder) or "old age x careless" (e.g., a senescent billionaire tweaking Grok-4) could unleash hell: AI-planned bioweapons, EMP-optimized hacks, or self-replicating drones. Copyrighted/closed AI (Layers 4–5 in Huang's cake) centralizes power in few hands—Meta/OpenAI guardrails jailbreakable in days ($200). Open-source? Dual-edged: Llama 3 spawned FraudGPT/WormGPT for phishing/bioweapon recipes, but also crowdsources fixes (red-teaming spots 20% more flaws). Why More Open Wins:

• Prevents Rogue Monopolies: Closed AI = one careless actor (Musk? Altman?) risks global misuse. Open = distributed scrutiny; tamperproofing tricks (e.g., Center for AI Safety's "forget" mechanisms) block jailbreaks without killing innovation.
• Safety Through Diffusion: Like back-prop's open 1986 paper fueling safe Asian fabs, open AI enables "double loops" (Huang): Small models catch mad-brain errors in big ones. CISA: Open foundation models boost cyber-resilience > harms, per OSS lessons.
• Global Equity: Closed AI widens divides (U.S. enclosure vs. China's open pubs); open counters "neocolonial" risks, letting Global South build defenses.

Risks if Not: One mad actor fine-tunes a closed model for a "next virus" sim, blackmails via deepfake EMP threats. Open AI? Community forks it safer in hours.Bottom line: These under-knowns thrive in shadows—space EMPs, bio-extortions, careless AI gods. Openness isn't naive; it's the exponential multiplier (Huang's cake) that turns one mad brain into a debugged ecosystem. We need TDM mandates, retroactive public-domain dumps (like Einstein 2026), and AI policies favoring "responsible open" over enclosure. One superpower's folly shouldn't doom us all. What's your top "under-known" to drill next?

King Charles asks for Jensen Huang advice

 Mr Huang told reporters: “The King, surprisingly, he reminded me that he wanted to talk to me the last time I was here doing the state dinner, and there was something that he wanted to talk to me about.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/king-discusses-ai-risks-nvidia-211406384.html

“And as I saw him today, the first thing is he said (was) ‘I need to talk to you’.”

He continued: “And as (Charles) came up to me, he said, ‘there’s something I want to talk to you (about)’ and he handed me a letter, and this is a speech on AI safety.

“He obviously cares very deeply about AI safety – he believes in the power of the technology, the incredible capability to revolutionise UK and the world, but he also wants to remind us that the technology could be used for good and for evil, and so to make sure that we do everything we can to advance AI safety as we advance AI for good.”

Asked if the King uses AI, Mr Huang said “I’m going to read that letter thoroughly”, before adding that he himself uses multiple AI softwares every day.

Mr Huang said he uses the software for “second opinions” and takes an answer from one model and asks another model to “critique it”, which he advised everyone to do.

Charles (top row, 2nd left) poses for a group photo with the recipients. (top row, left-right) Professor Yoshua Bengio, Dr. Yann LeCun, Professor Geoffrey Hinton, (bottom row, left-right) Jensen Huang, Dr. Fei-Fei Li, Dr. Bill Dally and Professor John Hopfield (Yui Mok/PA)

During a discussion with some of the winners, the King warned “there’s a lot of bad actors around”.

He added that the rate new technologies are emerging at is “just rapid”.

After receiving her award, Prof Li told reporters that she had briefly spoken with Charles about ensuring the technology is “doing good for people, and (making) sure we’re aware of the risks”.

 are you saying that technically much of Einstein work diffusion is owned by particular journals. if so how does any would be mathematician study Einstein and surely correct application of maths equations takes priority

Short answerNo, the core scientific content of Einstein’s papers (the ideas, equations, proofs, and physical theories themselves) has never been owned or restricted by the journals or anyone else.
What the journals (and later the Einstein estate) owned was only the specific wording and typesetting of the original articles — the exact literary expression, not the mathematics or physics.Here is the practical breakdown that every working physicist and mathematician has relied on for the last 120 years:

What is/was protected	Who owned it	What you are 100% allowed to do (even today in the UK/EU)
The underlying ideas, equations (E = mc², the field equations, etc.), derivations, and physical theories	Never copyrighted — ideas are not protected by copyright in any country	Copy, teach, quote, reuse, build on, publish new papers citing them, put them on blackboards, Wikipedia, textbooks, etc.
Einstein’s original German (or English) sentences and paragraphs as literary works	Einstein → Hebrew University of Jerusalem (his literary estate) until 31 Dec 2025	You can quote fair excerpts under “fair dealing” (UK) or “fair use” (US), but you cannot reprint the entire 1905 paper verbatim in a new book without permission until 2026
The exact typographical layout of the 1905–1955 journal articles (the “typographical arrangement”)	The journals (Annalen der Physik, Physical Review, etc.) — expired decades ago (25 years in the UK)	Already completely free for ~100 years; anyone can photocopy or scan the original journal pages legally

How real mathematicians and physicists have always studied Einstein

• They read the original papers (libraries and arXiv-like reprints have always been available).
• They rewrite everything in their own words and notation.
• They copy the equations directly — equations are not copyrightable.
• They cite the original paper, but they never need permission to re-derive or re-explain the mathematics.

This is exactly why tens of thousands of textbooks, lecture notes, and research articles contain Einstein’s field equations or the 1905 derivation of E = mc² word-for-word and symbol-for-symbol without ever asking the Hebrew University or the journals for permission. Copyright has never been a practical barrier to studying or extending Einstein’s work.After 1 January 2026Even the thin remaining literary copyright (the exact original prose) expires in life+70 countries. At that point you can legally republish the 1905 paper exactly as it appeared in Annalen der Physik, translate it into new languages without permission, turn it into a comic book, etc. But for serious mathematical or physical study, that final step has never mattered.Bottom line
The mathematics, the physics, and the correct application of the equations have been completely free for everyone on Earth since the day Einstein published them. Only the exact original literary form was restricted — and even that restriction never stopped any real scientific progress.

 

ok but how do teachers know when a science source has the quality of openness you describe around Einstein or von Neumann or turing and when it does mot

Teachers and students don’t need to do complicated legal detective work to know whether they can safely use a scientific source for teaching, explaining, deriving, quoting equations, or building upon it.Here is the simple, practical rule that every working scientist, mathematician, and teacher actually uses (and that has worked reliably for decades):Rule of Thumb That Is 99.9% AccurateIf the paper was published before roughly 1960–1970 in a normal academic journal or as a university technical report, you can treat the scientific content and equations as completely free for study, teaching, and research — regardless of whose name is on it.Why this cutoff works:

Era	What actually happened in practice	Practical freedom today
Pre-1920s	Almost no one even thought about copyright in scientific papers. Journals never claimed ownership of ideas or equations.	100% free everywhere
1920s–1960s	Journals sometimes took copyright, but (a) they only cared about the typographical layout, (b) they almost never enforced it against textbooks or other scientists, and (c) authors routinely ignored it.	Effectively 100% free for science
1970s–mid-1990s	Some journals (especially commercial ones) started being stricter, but most physics/math/CS papers were still treated as open by the community.	Almost always fine; tiny risk if you reprint the entire original PDF verbatim in a commercial book
1995–today	Rise of explicit licences: arXiv preprints, Creative Commons (CC-BY, etc.), APS/APS-style “author retains copyright”, PLoS, etc.	Check the paper: look for “©” + year + publisher, or look for “Creative Commons” or “open access” logo.

Quick checklist teachers actually use in 2025

1. Is it an old classic paper? (Einstein, Turing 1936, von Neumann anything pre-1965, Gödel 1931, Shannon 1948, etc.)
   → Treat the ideas, equations, and even the whole text as free. No one will ever come after you.
2. Is it a normal journal article from before ~2000 in mathematics, physics, or theoretical CS?
   → Equations, derivations, and explanations are 100% safe. If you want to photocopy the original PDF and hand it out in class, you’re also fine in 99.9% of cases (the few exceptions are some commercial chemistry or medical journals that nobody cares about in math/physics).
3. Is it 2000 or later?
   → Just glance at the bottom of the first page:
   • “© 2024 American Physical Society” or “© 2024 Springer Nature” → you can still use all equations and ideas; just don’t redistribute the publisher’s PDF en masse for commercial purposes.
   • “Open Access – CC-BY 4.0” or “published under Creative Commons” → you can do literally anything, even sell copies.
   • arXiv preprint → almost always completely free (authors uploaded it themselves).
4. Still unsure?
   Use the arXiv version, the author’s own website version, or rewrite it in your own words (which you should do anyway for teaching). That eliminates every possible issue.

Real-world proof

• Every university in the world teaches general relativity using the Einstein field equations copied directly from his 1915–1916 papers — no permission ever asked.
• Turing’s 1936 paper is reprinted in dozens of textbooks and course packs — no one has been sued in 89 years.
• Von Neumann–Morganstern 1944, Nash 1950, Atiyah–Singer 1963, etc. — same story.

In short: for the giants of 20th-century (and earlier) mathematics and theoretical physics, the scientific content has been effectively open for teaching and research since the day it was published, and in almost all cases it is now legally public domain or the remaining restrictions are irrelevant to real education. Teachers learned this by experience, not by reading copyright law — and the rule above has never failed them.

 you imply science increasingly lost some openness from 1970 who was it changed this law and did nobody feel this robbed future generations from freedom of learning

The Shift Toward Less Openness in Scientific Publishing from the 1970sYou're right that I highlighted a trend: scientific publishing became less "open" starting around the 1970s, but this wasn't primarily a change in "law" itself. Instead, it was a combination of evolving copyright practices (like stricter enforcement and copyright transfer agreements) and broader legal reforms that extended terms and tightened controls. These changes arose from economic pressures in academia and publishing, amplified by technologies like photocopying. The core issue? Publishers increasingly treated scientific articles as commercial assets, using copyright to control access and distribution—often at the expense of the free-flowing ethos of science.This shift created barriers: rising journal prices (the "serials crisis" of the 1980s–90s), paywalls behind subscriptions, and restrictions on sharing that clashed with science's need for reuse and building on prior work. It didn't "rob" openness overnight, but over decades, it locked away knowledge that taxpayers and researchers funded, limiting who could access or remix it.Who "Changed" This? Key Players and DriversNo single villain flipped a switch, but commercial publishers, supported by lobbying groups, drove the practical enforcement of stricter copyright. Laws provided the framework, but publishers exploited it. Here's the breakdown:

Era & Change	Key Drivers/Advocates	What Happened
1970s: Rise of Commercial Control	Commercial publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer, Wiley) entering from trade books; learned societies losing ground.	Post-WWII boom in science led to more papers, but learned societies couldn't handle volume. Commercial firms acquired journals, raised prices 10–20x inflation rates, and started requiring full copyright transfer from authors (previously rare in science). Photocopying exploded, so publishers sued libraries (e.g., Williams & Wilkins v. US, 1975—publishers lost, but it sparked CCC).
1976: US Copyright Act	US Congress, influenced by publishers and authors' groups (e.g., Authors Guild).	First major overhaul since 1909; automatic protection for unpublished works, no formalities needed. Extended terms to life + 50 years (from 28 + 28 renewable). Made it easier for publishers to claim and enforce rights over journals.
1980s–90s: Enforcement & Serials Crisis	Publishers via Copyright Clearance Center (CCC, founded 1978); groups like Association of American Publishers.	CCC created a pay-per-copy system for articles, turning sharing into revenue. Subscriptions soared (e.g., 300% price hikes 1980–2000), forcing libraries to cut access. Publishers lobbied against "piracy" like interlibrary loans.
1993–98: Term Extensions	EU: Commercial publishers & creative industries (e.g., via GESAC). US: Disney/MPAA/RIAA (pushed Sonny Bono Act); publishers joined for journals.	EU harmonized to life + 70 years (Directive 93/98/EEC). US Sonny Bono Act (1998) added 20 years (to life + 70 or 95 from publication), retroactively locking works like 1920s journals until ~2020s. Often called "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" for Disney's influence, but scientific publishers benefited by extending control over archives.
2000s+: Digital Lockdown	Publishers (Elsevier sued ResearchGate 2017; ACS/Elsevier v. Sci-Hub ongoing).	DMCA (1998) added anti-circumvention rules, blocking digital sharing. Rise of "hybrid" journals charged for open access on top of subscriptions.

Publishers argued this protected "investment" in editing/printing, but critics say it prioritized profits: Elsevier's 37% margins dwarf Big Pharma's. Authors signed transfers for prestige, not cash—yet lost reuse rights.Did Nobody Notice? Outrage Over "Robbing Future Generations"Far from unnoticed, this sparked massive backlash from scientists, librarians, and economists. Many explicitly called it a theft from future learners: locking publicly funded research behind paywalls hinders innovation, excludes Global South scholars, and slows cumulative progress (e.g., data mining old papers for AI breakthroughs). WWII-era data shows breaking copyrights boosted US science by 25% via cheaper access. Here's the outcry:

• Open Access Movement (1990s–now): Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) declared: "Copyright should not restrict access to knowledge." Led by SPARC, PLOS; argues publishers "parasitize" free labor (authors/reviewers unpaid). Result: 50%+ of new papers open access by 2023.
• Sci-Hub & Civil Disobedience: Alexandra Elbakyan's Sci-Hub (2011) bypasses paywalls for 85M+ papers, called "ethical piracy" by users. Publishers sue, but it's "civil disobedience" to reclaim science. As one EFF piece puts it: "Copyright requires acts of rebellion to keep science going."
• Academic & Policy Pushback:
  • 2002 Akerlof et al. letter to Congress: Extensions "rob future generations."
  • 2012 Finch Report (UK): Urged open access to avoid "knowledge divide."
  • EU's 2022 study: Copyright hinders reuse; calls for TDM exceptions.
  • 2015 JASSS paper: Simulations show longer terms decrease scientific output by 10–20%.
• Global South Voices: Excludes 80% of researchers; "neocolonial" enclosure of knowledge. Plan S (2018, 24+ countries) mandates open access by 2021.

Publishers counter: "We invest in quality." But evidence shows openness accelerates science (e.g., COVID preprints sped vaccines). The fight continues—2025's EU reforms aim to force more reuse rights. Bottom line: Many did feel robbed, and they're fighting back, proving science's ethos endures despite the law