[open-science] Announcing the open source release of scholarly publishing platform, sci.pe

Tiffany Bogich tiffany at sci.pe
Fri Jul 12 21:19:03 UTC 2019

Thanks for reaching out,

Our intent is to have the source code under the AGPL3 license and sell
exceptions in the spirit of

Our inspiration has been the QT project (https://www.qt.io/download).

We know that dual-licensing can be controversial and we took that decision
with caution, but we feel that it serves the best possible compromise for
this particular code-base.

If you would be open to a call we would appreciate any guidance.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 4:48 PM Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> I do not understand the licence that you use. It does not appear to be
> compliant with OSI or the Open Definition.
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:37 PM Tiffany Bogich <tiffany at sci.pe> wrote:
>> We are excited to announce the open-source release of our scholarly
>> publishing platform sci.pe.
> You describe this as "open source" presumably compliant with
> https://opensource.org/ (OSI).
>> To view the full announcement, visit:
>> https://research.sci.pe/ballesteros2019b. sci.pe source code can be
>> found on Github: https://github.com/science-periodicals and sci.pe
>> vision at https://sci.pe/get-started/vision.
> Your Github repo has no LICENSE.md . You state:
> "@scipe/api is dual-licensed under commercial and open source licenses (
> AGPLv3 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html>) based on the
> intended use case. Contact us to learn which license applies to your use
> case."
> This implies that the license is dependent on the user, their motivation
> ("based on the intended use case") and their business.
>> We are trying a dual license approach so that not-for-profit, open access
>> journals can benefit from the platform free of charge while still allowing
>> sci.pe to continue development with the support of our cloud offering
>> and commercial license options.
> Open Source (https://opensource.org/osd-annotated ) deliberately makes
> >>>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
> specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
> from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
> *Rationale:* The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license
> traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want
> commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
> >>>
> Therefore I do not see how, from what you have said, that the program is
> "open source"
> (technically A/GPL is Free software, not Open, you appear not to be
> compliant with either.)
> I hope this is of interest and if you would like more information feel
>> free to contact us (contact at sci.pe) or follow us on github (
>> science-periodicals <https://github.com/science-periodicals>) or twitter
>> (@scipeTweets <https://twitter.com/scipeTweets>).
>> In essence, if you licence your software under any F/OSS licence , the
> licensee can be of any type (profit, non-profit) and the software can be
> used for any legal purpose whether for profit or not.
>> Tiffany Bogich, PhD
>> Co-founder, sci.pe (science periodicals)
>> 7 World Trade Center, 46th Floor
>> New York, New York 10007
>> mobile: +1 917 882 5422
>> email: tiffany at sci.pe
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20190712/47ee4ae8/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list