On Dec 10, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Craig James wrote:
> Let's back up a couple step. I can't even figure out what we're discussing.
>
> Do you want a *policy* for OB that all projects have to adhere to?
>
> Do you want *guidelines* for all projects under the OB banner?
>
> Is there some *specific project* that doesn't have a well-defined license,
> such that it is of concern to the OB community?
I can say on my part that I wanted clarification of why the Blue Obelisk wiki
page on Open Standards said that SMILES was not an open standard while CML was
an open standard.
The continued description of SMILES as a closed standard has been an irritation
to me, because SMILES seems to be about as far from a closed, proprietary
standard as anything else which exists in this field.
I've also raised the issue that CML does not include a copyright statement or
have a definite distribution license attached to it, which makes it hard for me
to consider it "open".
Because of my talking about that over the last week, I think that CML license
question will be resolved soon, especially as the lack of license may affect
downstream projects like the CDK and JChemPaint which include the CML schema as
part of the distribution.
> The word "open" is more political than descriptive.
I agree. I want to know the political views of Blue Obelisk which gets them to
say that something is open or not. I have my conjectures, but I would rather
hear something more concrete from them first.
Andrew
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
