[A quick and dirty off topic rant... forgive me!] Hello Ricardo,
thank you for the info! ...and thank you all for working on resolving this class of problems through Guix! Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> writes: > Giovanni Biscuolo <g...@xelera.eu> writes: [...] >> I fear flowPeacks will not be the last package with this kind licensing >> problems > > It sure isn’t. In the past I have tried to do a mass import from > Bioconductor and what slows me down the most is incorrect or non-free > licensing. There are some packages that declare to be licensed under > Artistic 2.0, but then actually they contain data from databases that > do not permit commercial use. Or they contain a copy of non-free tools, > or only work when those tools are present (e.g. kent tools, of which we > provide a package containing the few free tools). This confirms that licensing is an integral part of reproducibility and replicability, unfortunately a very neglected part even in academia (not to mention "industry") :-( . This is also part of the current science crisis... OK stop ranting :-D > It’s a pretty frustrating process to weed out these packages. Let them know! (Do they know?) «Dear Bioconductor Team, you state you are committed to bla bla reproducible research but *some* of the research you host is unreproducible for the simple reason some authors are ignoring licensing issues...» >> Since «Bioconductor is committed to open source, collaborative, >> distributed software development and literate, reproducible research.» [1] > > CRAN appears to be stricter about licenses (even though “strict” is > probably much too strong a word…). Bioconductor people appear to care a > little less. I'm out from academia, but every time I talk to friends involved in academia I'm pretty astonished by the general lack of scientific method [1] [2] applied in academia :-O. A little bit of metascience would help. ...and more Guix in academia is part of the solution :-D Thanks! Gio' [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility#Reproducible_research «In 2016, Nature conducted a survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. According to the survey, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.» [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
