These are slightly different things though, which is why I said "returns
to an argument about open source", not necessarily a good reason in itself.
Lucas's point seems to concern repeatability of an experiment, where we
specify the apparatus used. The open source comes down to verifiability
of the manufacturers' claim about their apparatus.
That is, there is a difference between having used the X-brand IR
spectrometer, so another scientist can repeat the experiment, and a
verification that the X-brand spectrometer works as claimed, which
requires a different sort of person (one that understands the workings
of the machine, but not necessarily the results it produces).
Alasdair
Nick Dalton wrote:
> Lucas I completely agree.
>
> sheep
>
> ps this would also be a good reason to make more academic software open
> source.
>
>
>>
>> That is why I reinforce that academic software must be properly
>> published AND cited - because it is part of the methodology you use in
>> experiments. I think we must put it in our software licence "cite it,
>> otherwise do not use it".
>>
>> Regards!
>> Lucas
>>
>
>
--
Alasdair Turner
Course Director
MSc Adaptive Architecture and Computation
Bartlett School of Graduate Studies
UCL Gower Street LONDON WC1E 6BT
http://www.aac.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/
|