Jon
I did not state, I think, that you are responsible for Nature's decisions.
Far from it, as a messenger you have enlightened me on what is happening in
this area - thank you.
As for patents; I despise patents on software as it really does inhibit
science. I made a policy a long time ago not t
Vincent
In the original message of Michael Love (forwarded by Jon Wright) it clearly
states:
> Although there are still some small problems, I think that this is a
> big step forward, and certainly an interesting read, if you are
> interested in FOSS and science.
What does "still some problems
AlanCoelho wrote:
Not sure what to make of all this Jon
Don't shoot the messenger, I was surprised enough by it to forward it to
the list. I guess they imply if you want to keep all implementation
details secret you should be patenting instead of publishing? (Patents
seems to be free online,
On Saturday 24 March 2007 00:01, AlanCoelho wrote:
> I am to believe that scientists prefer to mull over source code rather than
> pseudo code and mathematical descriptions. Anyone that knows just a little
> about software development would know that source code is the last thing
> that one wants t
Not sure what to make of all this Jon
I am to believe that scientists prefer to mull over source code rather than
pseudo code and mathematical descriptions. Anyone that knows just a little
about software development would know that source code is the last thing
that one wants to see. How many has
Hi Everyone; Just in case you don't follow ccp4bb or nature methods:
http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v4/n3/full/nmeth0307-189.html
I thought that some of you might be interested that the journal Nature
has clarified the publication requirements regarding source code
accessibility. It is li
