[open-science] [Open-access] Open Science Anthology published
punk.kish at gmail.com
Mon Jan 20 16:17:36 UTC 2014
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Marcus D. Hanwell <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Marcus D. Hanwell <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:
>>> I totally agree that software licenses
>>> should be used for software, and CC licenses are better suited to
>>> publishing, but access and reuse are important commonalities shared by
>>> both communities.
>> Remember, if possible in your jurisdiction, you can always use CC0 for pretty much any and everything.
> Certainly, although MIT/BSD is generally better recognized and
> understood in the context of software. I won't push the topic
> off-track too much, I think the OKD definition of open access nicely
> mirrors the OSI's definition of open source. CC0 does not appear in
> their list of OSI approved licenses,
Yes, perhaps. All depends on whose religion you want to believe in. FSF does recommend CC0 for PD dedication (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0) and CC mentions the same in their FAQ as well (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F)
CC is interested in possibly working on removing the one hitch that caused OSI to not recommend CC0 (http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero), but that concern may not apply to many software developers.
> which would make its application
> in software problematic for many.
What problems other than those mentioned in the links above?
More information about the open-science