From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon Oct 17 00:06:00 2011 From: "Brian Salter-Duke brian.james.duke(-)gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Science code manifesto Message-Id: <-45655-111016222252-8882-LlVmcsOIAH5Q0wDNKujL+Q(a)server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Brian Salter-Duke Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:22:42 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Brian Salter-Duke [brian.james.duke]|[gmail.com] I do not understand your point. The manifesto is supporting open source. Any open source code meets all the criteria of the manifesto, What is being closed? The manifesto is fully in accordance with what Google does. Brian. On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Sergio Manzetti sergio.manzetti++gmail.com wrote: > I agree with Sebastian, what is so "open" about closing open source into a > manifesto? I was  even more surprised that Google put their signature on > that manifesto, a company who endorses free openness in information flow. > > Sergio > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Brian.James.Duke{:}gmail.com > wrote: >> >> I just encountered the Science Code Manifesto, which essentially states >> that all computer code used for scientific analysis and modeling should >> be available for review. It appears to have started with the Climate >> Code Foundation. I encourage you to visit the web site and consider >> endorsing the Manifesto. >> >> http://sciencecodemanifesto.org/ >> >> Note that this is not specifying open source code, so GAMESS(US), >> GAMESS(UK), DALTON etc., as well as open source codes such as PSI3 amd >> MPQC satisfies the points of the manifesto. Of course some other quantum >> chemistry codes do not. I think we should be putting pressure on the >> authors of such codes to meet the criteria in this manifesto. >> >> Brian. > > -- Brian Salter-Duke (aka Brian Duke) Brian.James.Duke|-|gmail.com