[open-science] [Open-access] Open Science meetup in Vienna, February 25th

[Ross Mounce]

On 7 February 2013 20:47, cheeseman <info4cheesy at gmx.at> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jep, that's me :)
>
> Already got some interesting feedback and questions for our
> invitation. Is it strictly open source only?
>

Even here at the Open Knowledge Foundation we live in the real-world.
Although we definitely see the benefit and virtues of openly-licensed open
source software, many of us use macs or windows computers (not me actually
Lubuntu & Ubuntu are my OS's).
Thus open source is preferred but certainly things like Dropbox are
absolutely indispensable programs to many people I know (myself included).



> Should everything (raw data, publication) be re-useable, and
> re-distributable?
>

If you can, yes. This is what we stand for. But again, we live in a
complicated real-world. Most scientists myself included don't often get to
write papers alone, we collaborate. Not all our collaborators may be happy
doing science the open way. Those collaborators may be in a position of
power over us, perhaps they are our supervisor? One can try to be open, but
if we don't attain 100% perfection in that respect it is no shame.



>
> Is there any official position about this from the OKFN? I know panton
> principles, but barely know something about open source. I' quite
> shure the open definition also means reusability and
> redistributalbility for the papers too.
>

The official OKF line is that all branches and areas of OKF should
abide/follow the open defintion as you correctly point out:
http://opendefinition.org/

CC0 , CC BY and CC BY-SA are compliant open licences.

CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC-SA and CC BY-NC-ND are not open licences - they clearly
exclude some users and some usages (e.g. commercial usage).

My fellow OKF Panton Fellow Sophie Kershaw has an excellent video that
explains the Panton Principles for open data in science. Perhaps it might
be worth showing at your meeting to help explain what open data in science
is about?
http://youtu.be/JmN7gTGkJwA


And another question: Is OER and also an issue in open science, or is
> this better placed somewhere else?
>

OER (Open Educational Resources) are a closely related issue to open
science, but OER is not necessarily restricted to just science. It could be
an OER about performing arts for instance.

PLOS has recently published an OER textbook for science
called Translational Bioinformatics. This is pretty cool.
http://blogs.plos.org/biologue/2013/01/23/lets-make-those-book-chapters-open-too/

If used in undergraduate studies, students wouldn't need to buy expensive
textbooks any more - I certainly remember paying for some expensive ones
myself when I was an undergraduate student!


I mean, for me personally all this questions are no issue, I'm going
> the free/open way, but for a group/organisation, it's a little bit
> hard for me to make a point.
>

Great. Just don't be too militant on imposing open values on others. If
people open up there science just a little bit, that's still much better
than being 100% closed.

Many of us hear believe that open science is the future. One day what we
call open science, will just be called science. That's our goal :)

Best,


Ross



-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
Ross Mounce
PhD Student & Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow
Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07
http://about.me/rossmounce
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130207/f78186dd/attachment-0001.html>