↪ 2015-09-30 Wed 16:40, Antonello Lobianco (not reply) <[email protected]>: > Sorry, I forgot.. the motivation in not only the ethic of the software > itself.. is that too often (at least in my sector, forest economics but > economics in general as well) you see "results" arising from some sort of > models that are described more or less in detail in the paper, but which > software implementation is not available to really check the assumptions > and the logic of the model.. > I think it's a shame of the sector..
I believe what you are trying to fix is the fact that articles of scientific nature are not always “reproducible” or checkable because they're not making the source code available. I agree that it's an important problem and that the ethical thing to do when you conduct or publish such research is to make source code available. But I don't think that the proposed licensing tactic is the right way to address that. It's not a matter of software freedom. Maybe you should look at “open access” tactics and push scientific journals to require making the software used available for other scientists. Best, -- Hugo Roy – Free Software Foundation Europe https://fsfe.org/about/roy Please use cryptography for email: see https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/ Merci d’utiliser la cryptographie pour l’email : voir https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/fr/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
