One last reassuring word to the users of TOPAS - if I may
No open source algorithm under any license comes close to equalling those as
implemented in TOPAS and its academic counterpart. This status quo shall
remain.
In the event that commercial entities are locked out of journals then in the
case
2 AM
To: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ccp4bb] Nature policy update regarding source code]
Alan,
> As it stands however the reality of a GNU GPL license is that if a
> manufacture wanted to modify and include a program licensed under it in
> order to sell a larger manufacturi
Alan,
> As it stands however the reality of a GNU GPL license is that if a
> manufacture wanted to modify and include a program licensed under it in
> order to sell a larger manufacturing process for commercial purposes then
> they would be denied access unless all 10 people who wrote the soft
Brian
>I personally feel that open source software is usually in the best
interests of scientific
>methods development.
This is a matter of opinion but even if you are right then no one has the
right to deny non-publically funded bodies the right to practice science.
Science or knowledge
Alan,
> You are right in that open source is good at spreading algorithms but no
> one should be locked out by decree. Thus the licensing of software is
> critical; the GNU GPL license including Copyleft is not to be confused with
> something like Python; from the Python web site:
>
> "The
Vincent wrote:
"It is a step forward for F/OSS as it acknowledges that open-source code
allows to spread a new method better than a closed source. As opposed to,
filing a patent - since patents were originally developed to ensure that new
methods be available to all."
You are right in that open s
Alan,
> 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
ithms 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 p
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
