Re: slightly off-topic: support open source for publically-funde

[matt]

Yes you are dead right,
But from the perspective of some here in Australia and our close third-world
neighbours. All those US citezens and government groups who put huge efforts and
sums of money into fighting for freedom, human rights and fairness of
opportunity for all those citezens of the world, regardless of religion, colour,
or political beliefs, will of course be delighted at the opportunitiy to share a
few droplets of their good fortune with those who need it. After all, the US
does not sit in judgement of what may be defined as GOOD, EVIL, RIGHT or WRONG.
For instance, such a fair nation would never ban an English academic (my Mother)
from attending accadem ic conferences in the US due to her birth-place (The
British-Protectorate of Shanghai, MAINLAND CHINA). Nor would such a an
open-minded and free thinking culture dream of exploiting weaker cultures for
teir own personal gain -- God forbid.
Goodwill, cooperation and happy coding to all.
I am happy to make an $AUS financial contibution to help if the US threated with
poverty over this.
Matt

USA putting a little of the profits it has
gained through
exploitation of 
On 16-Nov-2001 glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> 
> 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-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.
>                   ==================================

----------------------------------
Linux: OS for the people by the people.
E-Mail: address@hidden
Date: 19-Nov-2001
Time: 16:59:31
This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------

                  ==================================
   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.