CCL:G: Science code manifesto

I don't think the manifesto is at odds with FSF. GPL'd software can be sold at any price, but its source code must be available for those who own the software at no further cost. And someone who has bought some GPL software is allowed to redistribute it for free, so researchers using it for a paper would be able to provide the software to reviewers and readers of the paper at no cost.

El 17 dâoctubre de 2011 18:42, Andrew Dalke dalke . dalkescientific.com <owner-chemistry(!)ccl.net> ha escrit:

Sent to CCL by: Andrew Dalke [dalke%dalkescientific.com]
On 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.

To be precise:

ÂAll source code written specifically to process data
Âfor a published paper must be available to the reviewers
Âand readers of the paper.

I interpret that to mean that you don't need to ship source
code for the entire operating system, analysis tools, compiler,
and so on. For that matter, you can publish your Gaussian
script, and not need to include the source for Gaussian itself.

It does seems like it leaves a hole for people who write
a general purpose program for one project, then use it
(unchanged) for something which is published. Of course, the
editors may object to that practice.


There's also a problem with:

 ÂResearchers who use or adapt science source code in
 Âtheir research must credit the codeâs creators in
 Âresulting publications

Consider the 70 authors and 15 libraries which make up
the CDK chemistry toolkit. There might be 100+ creators.
It's beyond reason to include everyone in the publications,
and the general expectation is to reference the project,
not all of the code's creators.

Finally, if you are a follower of the Free Software Foundation's
ideas on software freedom, then you agree that there's a freedom
to sell software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html )
for as much money as you want. This manifesto is almost at odds
with the FSF viewpoint; I see it omits any discussion of how
much it should cost to access the curated software.

These aren't big problems, but they do point out that this
is a complex issue.

               ÂAndrew Dalke
               Âdalke(~)dalkescientific.com



-= This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =-
E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY(!)ccl.net or use:
  Âhttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST(!)ccl.net or use
  Âhttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  Âhttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

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

Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml
  Âhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

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