Lock up you work and it's dead in the long run, and for a lot of people in the short run, too.
It's not about sanctimony: we need to be clear about what standards apply to schoalrly work.
On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Martin Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I undertand all this and my own projects follow it or so I think. But if
> you get too sanctimonious about it you'll just put off the folks that you
> want to persuade in the long ru ( in which of course we're all dead).
>
>
>
> Martin Mueller
>
> Professor of English and Classics
> Northwestern University
>
>
>
>
> On 4/25/13 9:54 AM, "Neel Smith" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> It's not about cost (free = gratis).
>>
>> It's about freedom to use and build upon work (freedom = liberty).
>> That's fundamental to scholarly work.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Martin Mueller
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I want to support Hugh's comments. There are many different ways of
>>> bringing stuff to the public sometimes for money, sometimes for free,
>>> and
>>> sometimes for in between. Making a particular form of open source
>>> license
>>> a shibboleth is unlikely to further the cause of learning.
>>>
>>> Martin Mueller
>>>
>>> Professor of English and Classics
>>> Northwestern University
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/25/13 8:40 AM, "Hugh Cayless" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scot and I may disagree about URIs ;-), but I really don't have a
>>>> problem
>>>> with his use of the term "open source" here. The source is open. In
>>>> other
>>>> contexts I might want to be more rigorous about licensing, but
>>>> publishing
>>>> the code from a personal project that he might in the future want to
>>>> charge for is nothing other than praiseworthy.
>>>>
>>>> My own reason for not liking CC for code licensing is that I'm not
>>>> certain about how well it handles the distinction between plain text
>>>> code
>>>> and compiled executable. That may just be my own lack of careful
>>>> reading
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> Hugh
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2013, at 8:48 , Nick White <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:21:46PM +1000, Scot Mcphee wrote:
>>>>>> I don't actually understand your point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I open source my code as a matter of policy; I've always done that.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is that "open source" is a term which is widely understood
>>>>> and agreed to have a specific meaning, namely that anyone can use
>>>>> the code according to the criteria in the Open Source Definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your code is available to view and use, but with more restrictions
>>>>> than people understand "open source" to mean. So calling it "open
>>>>> source" is going to mislead people, as you mean something different
>>>>> to how the term is generally used for software.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an aside, I recommend you read a bit more on the rationale for
>>>>> why open and free software is important, and consider releasing your
>>>>> code under a real open source license like ISC or the GPL.
>>>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html is a good introduction.
|