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" mean. Don't kid yourself; if you have read the SourceForge preamble then you would certainly know the agenda. Don't you understand "free" is what has caused the problems now faced in this field; everyone demands it be free but no one want to pay the real cost of software development. Too often those that wallow in politics end up making decisions that the rest have to follow; this has happened to Nature to some extent. I certainly don't want this garbage filling up my mail box. Too often real scientists are too busy doing what they should be doing; it may pay them to keep their eyes open a little. ============================================= >If they had mandated all code (full software) associated to articles to be >open-source, they would clearly have been unreasonable (as much as I like >open-source), but this is _not_ the case here. As I see things, a _small_ >piece of code should be associated to each algorithm, not a full software >with > 10 000 lines of code. They have not yet mandated "full software" but give them a millimetre and see what happens. And you cannot simply deposit a small piece of code most of the time. Most code rely on libraries and rarely is it trivial to rewrite code to be stand alone. Again this is something that only developers would know and not as it seems the decision makers. ============================================ >If someone claims that his algorithm allows computing FFT with O(n) >complexity, it is fair to ask him for a practical demonstration available to >all readers. If there are those who can't follow pseudo code or mathematical descriptions then what on earth are they doing in science. If that's not enough then an executable should suffice. Otherwise you are forcing developers not paid by tax payers to make their work free. Why is it that people of tax payer paid institutes must get paid and non-institute people not. If the believers of this were to forgo their salary and work for free then I would believe the argument. ============================================= >Most scientists want software which (i) is efficient and (ii) they can play >around with (=modify). Free is a side issue for most scientists I know. Yes, most scientist should also know that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If their Governments don't see it fit to pay for software development then vote them out of office. You cannot expect Governments not to pay for software and at the same time demand good software often written by those not paid by Governments. "Free is a side issue" - To believe that is to assert that pigs can fly. Again I never want to see source code; I want to see the mathematical description. ============================================= Best regards Alan Coelho
