CCL: Science code manifesto

 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 <owner-chemistry|-|ccl.net> 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
 > <owner-chemistry]-[ccl.net> 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