Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Are proprietary software and science compatible?

[Fabio Pesari]

On 05/14/2016 05:48 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>
> On that note, this article discusses issues related to the problem of
> source code and reporoducibility from a scientific perspective.  We may
> not (or may) agree with all of it, but it's a useful perspective:
> 
>   http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10836.html
> 
> (Note that the first comment contains more information from the authors
> that they could not fit in the article due to word limits.)

Thank you for the link, Mike!

I would appreciate this article more if it wasn't written by people who
can program. Don't get me wrong, I still think it is a good step
(considering it's not some random blog post), but the fact that no (or
extremely few) scientists from other fields than CS talk about this
issue is very worrying.

Scientists are supposed to ask questions. The fact that nobody ever
questions the software that is so important to research these days is
very worrying to me, because it means they are taking software for
granted and not asking any questions about it, which might mean they are
also not asking other questions which they might need to ask in order to
do their jobs properly.

I'll make a quick example - Stephen Hawking. He literally depends
exclusively on software (and hardware) to interact with the world and if
I were him, I would worry a bit more about software freedom, because
otherwise anyone can put anything in his mouth, but I don't think I've
ever heard him talk about free software (even if ACAT has been released
under the Apache License 2.0, it's Windows only).

To the article (I'll get to the rest of your mail below).

> One proposed solution to the problem of ambiguity is to devote a
> large amount of attention to the description of a computer program,
> perhaps expressing it mathematically or in natural language augmented
> by mathematics.

This is actually a better solution than the one they proposed because it
allows free/libre software developers to implement a new program without
looking at any proprietary code, which would get them into trouble for
copyright infringement (and prevent anyone who's actually looked at it
from writing any code, like it happened for Wine).

This also only works for first-party code. If the code depends on a
third-party program or library (the majority of cases), there's still a
problem.

> There are a number of barriers to the release of code.

I'll skip this part because those concerns aren't really barriers,
except this one:

> and finally that the development of program code is a subsidiary
> activity in the scientific effort.

This one is a barrier but only mentally; writing software can't be
considered a subsidiary activity anymore, in any field.

Let's get back to your post.

> ...but it stops very short: under the "Limited Access" heading, it says:
> [...]
> Which completely misses the point.  And I think this is the largely
> accepted view, and somehow dismisses the very issues that the paper is
> raising by either assuming that the black box of the proprietary library
> is somehow immune, or just negligently neglecting consideration on the
> matter.

Agreed. Like I said near the top, a lot of assumptions are made about
software, when every other aspect is looked at sceptically. It just
doesn't make sense.

It reminds me of those corrupt politicians who arrange secret meetings,
exchange suspicious packages and use code words, but then talk
unrestrainedly about their illegal activities on the phone or on Facebook.

> I meant to write the authors a while back but forgot (for this reason
> and a number of others); I think I'll do so.

Please do! We need more people talking about these issues.

> The simple answer is: proprietary software isn't compatible with _any_
> reasonable philosophy.

I'm on you with that!

I think that rather than characterizing proprietary software as evil, we
should call it for what it truly is, irrational.

> Are you in a scientific field, by chance?

Sadly not, but I can program and stuff :(