On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
The intention of all the BO contributors of code and specs is to make them
available, and re-usable without inappropriate restrictions. There is no
intention to restrict fields of endeavour or people or organizations.
Hi all,
in reply to the other thread... one thing we seem to agree on, is that
standards cannot be Open or not... something is a standard or not, and
this is decided by the uptake really...
Instead, what the discussion was really about is: Open Specifications.
Shall we rename ODOSOS to: Open
Egon Willighagen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Craig James craig_ja...@emolecules.com
wrote:
If there are specific concerns about specific projects, then
I'm all for a hearty discussion. If we want to recommend
specific licenses as preferred for all OB projects, then
that's a
There is clearly a spectrum of uses of the word Open, some of which we would
all agree with and some of which we would disagree. There are intermediates
where we will draw different lines.
As an example I recently heard a presentation (not chemistry) where the
presenter (primarily a salesperson)
