[open-science] [Open-access] Open Science Anthology published

Marcus D. Hanwell marcus.hanwell at kitware.com
Mon Jan 20 16:33:02 UTC 2014

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
Religion is a bit of a loaded term, but for many commercial developers
the OSI analysis is an important one as they invest the time to
analyze licenses for potential pitfalls. If it is not OSI-approved,
then it is often a non-starter as legal teams at companies will often
employ that as a minimum bar. See for example Google's Summer of Code
program FAQ as a public example,


> 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.
Perhaps not, although it speaks to a certain amount of brand
recognition. I trust the OKD list of open access licenses, and the OSI
list of open source licenses.
>> which would make its application
>> in software problematic for many.
> What problems other than those mentioned in the links above?
I would say part of it is recognition, many of us in software know
what we are getting with MIT, 3-clause BSD, GPLv2, GPLv3+, etc. In
addition, the MIT, BSD, Apache licenses have been around longer, legal
teams recognize them pretty quickly and many debates have already been
had and settled. This may change over time, part of it is likely a
marketing/communication issue for Creative Commons. These are purely
my opinions as a developer working for an open-source scientific
software company in the US (previously academia in the UK), and I work
with many who still feel GPL is needed to ensure freedom...



More information about the open-science mailing list