Re: slightly off-topic: support open source for publically-funded research

[glen e. p. ropella]

Well, I'm sure this isn't the place to argue this; but, I'd just
like to point out that agencies like the NIH, NSF, DARPA, etc.
are funded by US taxpayers, not global contributors.

Having the US publicly funded agencies force software created
under their auspices to use open source licenses would subsequently
force US citizens into donating their money toward helping other
countries remain competitive with the US.  It's possible that this
is unconstitutional.  Of course, there's an obvious analog to this
in published research.  But, unless all research conducted with
such funds is *required* to be publicly available, all software
should not be so required.

If the petition is re-written as "encouraged to be free software",
then everything seems a bit more valid.

Besides, the petition is specious because open source is not
"...the software equivalent of peer-reviewed publication of
research results".  This is mixing metaphors.  Open source is the
equivalent of standardized tools in scientific research.  The software,
itself, is not the research.  The software is one (and only one)
description of one of the pieces of experimental equipment used.

Whether the piece of equipment is "open" or not has nothing
to do with the efficacy of peer-review or repeatability.  It
does have something to do with the efficiency of the equipment,
however.

Using the correct metaphor, the actual *executable* and the
machine upon which that executable was executed should be
made available to other researchers in order to support the
peer-review process.  And at least one description of that
execution machinery should be provided.... and the source
code can be a part of that description.  But requiring that
the source code be provided is like requiring that a very
detailed specification of a particular piece of hardware
be required for another type of scientific experiment.  Rather
than saying "We used the Tektronix XYZ model oscilloscope"
one would have to provide a detailed description of the particular
oscilloscope used, which is a pretty ridiculous requirement.


At 02:54 AM 11/16/2001 -0800, Alex Lancaster wrote:
> This is only very slightly off-topic, but pretty relevant for a lot of
> us in academia developing software, particularly Swarm applications...
>
> "Petition to Public Funding Agencies: Support Open Source Software"
>
>  http://www.openinformatics.org/dsp_petition.php
>
> It's a petition to make software developed through research funded
> through public grants (NIH/NSF grants etc.) to be able to released as
> open source software...
>
> So do a good thing today, and go and sign this...
>
> I now return you to your regularly scheduled swarm-support /
> swarm-modelling...
>
> Alex
> --
>    Alex Lancaster * <address@hidden> * www.santafe.edu/~alex
> Dept. of Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley (ib.berkeley.edu) * +1 510 642-1233
>     & Swarm Development Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico (www.swarm.org)
>
>
>                   ==================================
>    Swarm-Modelling is for discussion of Simulation and Modelling techniques
>    esp. using Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp. [un]subscribing),
>    please send a message to <address@hidden> with "help" in the
>    body of the message.
>                   ==================================

=><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><=
The competent hawk hides its claws.       =><=        Hail Eris!
glen e. p. ropella   =><=   H:831.335.4950  =><=  C:650.776.4616


                 ==================================
  Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
  to day usage of Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
  [un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
  with "help" in the body of the message.