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

Puneet Kishor punk.kish at gmail.com
Mon Jan 20 16:49:50 UTC 2014

Thanks Marcus. You make very sensible arguments below.

On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Marcus D. Hanwell <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:

> 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,
> https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2013/help_page#2._What_licenses_do_I_have_to_choose
>> 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...
> Sincerely,
> Marcus

More information about the open-science mailing list