| |||||||||||||
A scientific basis for Open Source SoftwareA scientific basis for Open Source SoftwarePosted May 18, 2012 22:39 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)Parent article: A scientific basis for Open Source Software The scientific argument is that independent researchers must be able to determine how the results were produced, so they need to be able to see the source code and ideally include an analysis of the code as part of the review process if the results depend on it. But this doesn't require that every provision of the DFSG be honored; for example, many researchers make their software available "for research purposes only", hoping to commercialize it later. That said, for research that gets taxpayer funds the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay twice (once to fund the development, again if they want to use the results), and we wouldn't want reviewers, who are peers in the same field, from being prevented from developing similar but improved software.
(Log in to post comments)
A scientific basis for Open Source Software Posted May 18, 2012 23:31 UTC (Fri) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link]
I have developed several scientific code packages with support from the NIH (US National Institutes of Health). There is a requirement in the boilerplate of a typical NIH grant award that the resulting programs are treated as open source. Now the NIH definition of "open source" probably does not meet the criteria of the OSF, but it does satisfy the scientific concern that other researchers using the programs can inspect the source code for themselves to verify or understand how it works.
If the software is later commercialized, this can introduce complications. But, at least in my field, the norm for commercial software developed academically is to charge what the market will bear to pharmaceutical companies but make it available at no cost, usually with restrictions on further redistribution, to other academic groups. Schroedinger was mentioned in an earlier comment, and provides a case in point. They charge a nice fee for their stuff commercially, but at least some of their packages are also distributed as standard RPMs in various linux distros. To drag in mention of a separate thread, this is/was one of the nice features of Mandrake/Mandriva. They offered a nice set of chemistry-related packages, although in recent years this wasn't kept up as well as one might wish.
A scientific basis for Open Source Software Posted May 18, 2012 23:35 UTC (Fri) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link]
What is OSF?
A scientific basis for Open Source Software Posted May 18, 2012 23:43 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Seems pretty obvious that OSI is being mistakenly called OSF
A scientific basis for Open Source Software Posted May 18, 2012 23:55 UTC (Fri) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] My brain/fingers are stuck back in the era of DEC/OSF. But yes, I meant the OSI.
A scientific basis for Open Source Software Posted May 19, 2012 16:42 UTC (Sat) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
> But this doesn't require that every provision of the DFSG be honored
Though it may require much more of it than is obvious at than at first guess. For example, sometimes the only viable path to show that something is broken is to fix it and then let others validate for themselves that the fixed version works better. A license which allows you to look but not touch isn't sufficient.
Ultimately, I think the real underlying requirement is that the software itself also be part of the continuing scientific dialog— but this isn't reasonably possible without pretty much the full DFSG. Consider— without the freedom to use the results of your modifications commercial, you'll spend time reinventing the wheel instead of furthering the art from the existing tools. — but sure, access to the code is an essential improvement.
A scientific basis for Open Source Software Posted May 19, 2012 22:09 UTC (Sat) by bjartur (guest, #67801) [Link]
Technically, you could address your former concern by allowing the distribution and application of patches. Actually, some supposedly free software is distributed under licenses that prohibit modification but allow distribution if patches. Gnuplot (not GNU) and amiwm, for example.
But yes, substantial advancement of the state of art, and in special merging software from multiple projects, requires more freedom.
|
|||||||||||||