An editor recently suggested to me that I should change the words "Open
Source" in a manuscript to "open source" and I was happy to accept her
advice because I think that it makes a useful distinction. We
understand "Open Source" to mean strict compliance with the 10 criteria
proposed by the Open Source Initiative, and "open source" to mean that
the program source is made available without extra cost to all users but
the conditions may deviate from these criteria.
I have been distributing the SHELX sources since the mid-1970s, long
before there was an Open Source Initiative, and this may have played a
part in getting the idea of open source accepted in the crystallographic
community. My concept of open source hasn't changed since then and not
surprisingly deviates in some details from Open Source.
It is essential that scientific work can be reproduced by others and
to my mind the source is the definitive description of how the
calculations were performed. On the other hand my university needs to
charge commercial users a (very modest) license fee to cover the costs
of supporting and developing the programs, and it seemed to me (in 1976)
that this would require some restrictions on the redistribution of the
software. My attempts to cover this by writing grant applications were
(with the exception of a couple of EU grants) singularly unsuccessful,
one DFG attempt about 5 years ago was rejected with the justification
that I was "too inexperienced" to write crystallographic software. I
have always agreed to requests to incorporate parts of my code into
other programs (even direct competitors) and the versions of SHELX-76
modified by Dobi Rabinovich (to increase the number of atoms from 160
to 400!) and SHELXL-97 modified by Kay Diederichs (for multiple CPUs)
became part of the standard distribution. I was also worried that rival
versions of SHELX, all with different input requirements and bugs,
would get into circulation and confuse users. CCP4 faces similar
problems and may well have found a better solution.
George
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-3021 or -3068
Fax. +49-551-39-22582
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, James Stroud wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2009, at 11:24 PM, Partha Chakrabarti wrote:
> >Dear BBusers,
> >
> >I initially did not want to post this in the BB. With all due respect,
> >could we use the word "open source" for those programs where the
> >latest build or source code are available to the community?
> >
> >Regards, Partha
>
>
> Open source, in it's most common definition (as decreed by the Open Source
> Initiative), must meet 10 requirements that I cut-and-paste below from
> wikipedia to make my post seem more meaty and thoughtful.
>
> It would help if you could point to specific examples where the term has been
> misused. I haven't seen it misused in any recent discussions myself, but I
> don't claim to have the greatest reading comprehension in the world.
>
> James
>
> =====
>
> Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
>
> The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following
> criteria:
>
> 1. Free Redistribution
>
> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
> software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
> programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
> royalty or other fee for such sale.
>
> 2. Source Code
>
> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source
> code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed
> with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the
> source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably,
> downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the
> preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately
> obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output
> of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
>
> 3. Derived Works
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to
> be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
>
> 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
>
> The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form
> only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source
> code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must
> explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code.
> The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version
> number from the original software.
>
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
>
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
> specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from
> being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
>
> 7. Distribution of License
>
> The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is
> redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those
> parties.
>
> 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
>
> The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part
> of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that
> distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's
> license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same
> rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software
> distribution.
>
> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
>
> The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed
> along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist
> that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source
> software.
>
> 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
>
> No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or
> style of interface.
> – Open Source Initiative, http://opensource.org/docs/osd
>
|