From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon Oct 17 08:56:01 2011 From: "Sergio Manzetti sergio.manzetti(a)gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Science code manifesto Message-Id: <-45657-111017045933-26678-8p3/62L4ZFLtKBdTWfs0pA]_[server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Sergio Manzetti Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d0080fe843204af7ad27c Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:59:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Sergio Manzetti [sergio.manzetti!=!gmail.com] --20cf307d0080fe843204af7ad27c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sebastian pointed out the details. It is an exclusive method which excludes those that cannot meet the criteria of the manifesto. Therefore it is closing in its effect on the population of potential scientific results and not to mention attempts by the scientific community to meet the criteria of the manifesto. The manifesto you mention should be the sole responsibility of each journal that aims to publish such work. Cheers Sergio On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Brian Salter-Duke brian.james.duke(-) gmail.com wrote: > > 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> > > --20cf307d0080fe843204af7ad27c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sebastian pointed out the details. It is an exclusive method which excludes= those that cannot meet the criteria of the manifesto. Therefore it is clos= ing in its effect on the population of potential scientific results and not= to mention attempts by the scientific community to meet the criteria of th= e manifesto. The manifesto you mention should be the sole responsibility of= each journal that aims to publish such work.

Cheers

Sergio

On Mon, Oct 17, = 2011 at 4:22 AM, Brian Salter-Duke brian.james.duke(-)gmail.com <owner-chemistry(_)ccl.net> wrote:

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.n= et> wrote:
> I agree with Sebastian, what is so "open" about closing open= source into a
> manifesto? I was=A0 even more surprised that Google put their si= gnature on
> that manifesto, a company who endorses free openness in information fl= ow.
>
> 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 s= tates
>> that all computer code used for scientific analysis and modeling s= hould
>> be available for review. It appears to have started with the Clima= te
>> Code Foundation. I encourage you to visit the web site and conside= r
>> endorsing the Manifesto.
>>
>> htt= p://sciencecodemanifesto.org/
>>
>> Note that this is not specifying open source code, so GAMESS(US),<= br> >> 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 q= uantum
>> chemistry codes do not. I think we should be putting pressure on t= he
>> authors of such codes to meet the criteria in this manifesto.
>>
>> Brian.
>
>



--
Brian Salter-Duke (aka Brian Duke)
Brian.James.Duke#%#gmail.com=



-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-=
E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY(_)ccl.n= et or use:
=A0 =A0 =A0http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEM= ISTRY-REQUEST(_)ccl.net or use
=A0 =A0 =A0http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
=A0 =A0 =A0http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.n= et/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/co= nferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml
=A0 =A0 =A0h= ttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/



--20cf307d0080fe843204af7ad27c--