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 to patent. What a developer seeks is to be paid for the work of coding. New work can easily be described in the well proven language of mathematics. Anyone that is computationally minded can and should be able to implement any ideas that I may have come it with. I have also used many algorithms written by third parties and the math descriptions accompanied by pseudo code is what I look for - never sour code. Cheers Alan -----Original Message----- From: Jon Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2007 12:21 PM To: rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ccp4bb] Nature policy update regarding source code] 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, NM is $30 per 2 page article?). As Vincent says, the new part of an algorithmic development is often much less than the whole package, and useless to the average user without a gui. Wonder what this means for any REAL programmers out there who are still programming directly in hex. Their source is most people's compiled, but considerably more interesting to read ;-) Best, Jon
