Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-31 Thread Michael Banck
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:29:21PM +0200, Michael Hanke wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:00:57AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10836.html In case you don't want to pay Nature to read about this, you can alternatively pay Science...

Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-31 Thread Luis Ibanez
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko deb...@onerussian.comwrote: Exactly! And there is more to it. Someone bold could event exaggerate that requiring open code on its own is **useless** besides for being an ideal description of the method implementation. Why useless?

[OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-29 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi, you might like to read: The case for open computer programs Darrel C. Ince, Leslie Hatton John Graham-Cumming Scientific communication relies on evidence that cannot be entirely included in publications, but the rise of computational science has added a new layer of inaccessibility.

Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-29 Thread lina
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote: Hi, you might like to read: The case for open computer programs Darrel C. Ince, Leslie Hatton John Graham-Cumming Seems it's been recommended before in the list. Scientific communication relies on evidence that

Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-29 Thread Oz Nahum Tiram
Hi All, Indeed strong words, published in Nature where you need to pay $32 to read what we all know already. Regards, Oz On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote: Hi, you might like to read: The case for open computer programs Darrel C. Ince, Leslie Hatton

Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-29 Thread Luis Ibanez
What is more interesting is the reaction that followed in serious scientific journals: 1) PLoS ONE (the Open Access Mega Journal that currently publishes 3% of all the STM literature) now requires software papers to include the source code under an Open Source license:

Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-29 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
If you have 15$ left have you read the Nature paper, then you could also read less particular about details version of the same thing from Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6078/159.full Research Priorities Shining Light into Black Boxes A. Morin, J. Urban, P. D. Adams, I. Foster, A.

Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-29 Thread Michael Hanke
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:00:57AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10836.html In case you don't want to pay Nature to read about this, you can alternatively pay Science... http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6078/159 -- Michael Hanke

Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-29 Thread Brendon Higgins
Hi, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote (May 29, 2012): If you have 15$ left have you read the Nature paper, then you could also read less particular about details version of the same thing from Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6078/159.full [snip] Meanwhile we can just keep going

Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-29 Thread Luis Ibanez
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Brendon Higgins blhigg...@gmail.comwrote: Ideally the whole system should be open, not just the chunk of code unique to each experiment. +1 Luis

Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

2012-05-29 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
On Tue, 29 May 2012, Brendon Higgins wrote: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6078/159.full [snip] Meanwhile we can just keep going forward making it all possible ;) ... In this context, open _code_ and open _platforms_ are two different (albeit related) beasts. ... Ideally the