Sounds rather extreme considering what's /actually/ annoying you is you
weren't told up-front that's it's not worth your time trying to install
whatever you were installing. You should be complaining to whomever
misled you into wasting your week.
The other thing you seem to be railing against is the universe, for not
magically funding all software developers in perpetuity. That's one for
the funding bodies... though to be fair, can they be expected to support
every brain-fart that made it into code and hence a paper?
(You asked for a flame! :)
phx
On 12/05/2015 17:48, James Stroud wrote:
I hereby call on the broadest community of academics and researchers, including
scientists, historians, economists, sociologists, psychologists, and whoever
else has ever published a paper or read from the literature thereof, to reject
any and all papers that describe new software that itself is not released under
an open source model.
I further declare that this post is designed to ruffle feathers and incite
incendiary conversation, to provoke all-caps and evoke multiple exclamation
marks with interposed “1”s where anger prevents one from properly holding the
shift key.
My rationale for this post: I have just spent a week installing software for
structural biology (not crystallography) only to find that some of the key
utilities needed were described in a recent publication but were not OSS. The
authors have decided to stop supporting the software but have not retracted
their paper, which is completely irrelevant without the availability of the
software package they describe.
Let’s hammer this one out and come to the rational conclusion that non-OSS
software should not be awarded publications.
James
