6 ms·

> Free software isn't about making data openly available. You must be allowed to redistribute the software, and you must be allowed to get, modify, and redistr

> Free software isn't about making data openly available. You must be allowed to redistribute the software, and you must be allowed to get, modify, and redistribute the code. Binaries and code are data. Maybe what you mean is that the biologists' and x-ray crystallographers' journals developed their push for data access independently of the free software movement, but it's a stretch to say that access to the data that a programmer creates and access to the data that a biologist creates have nothing in common.

eesmith 7y ago
"Allowed to" is not the same as "required to." Open science people generally want people who publish papers to be required to publish the data. This might be in a public repository, or with the journal, and if there is a fee, that fee should effectively only cover cost. Stallman's conception of free software says that you should be able to charge as much as you want. Hence, these are different concepts. What I mean is that the statement in the original comment, "Now chemists and biologists have started talking about making data openly available and so forth" is wrong. Chemists and biologists "started talking about" this decades ago. The evidence I showed is that it was no later than 1987. It's almost certainly older - I just happened to read about this example. I'm not saying they have nothing in common. I'm reacting to the hyperbole in the idea that the free software movement was instrumental to "the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done".
- kqr 7y ago
  Well, when you purchase GPL licensed software, the author is required to supply you also with the source code, and you must be allowed to redistribute this (under terms and conditions.) Sure, there are distinctive features for each domain, but in broad strokes, I don't see the above description as very different from the one following: When you purchase access to an open-data paper, the author is required to supply you also with the raw data, and you must be allowed to redistribute this (under terms and conditions.)
  - eesmith 7y ago
    "when you purchase GPL" .. sure. But there's nothing to force me to provide you with the software until you've given me money. Even if I used someone else's GPL'ed software in my software, I can simply not distribute it until someone gives me $100,000. "When you purchase access to an open-data paper" Some provisos first. Some papers are gratis, and don't require being purchased. (Eg, author-pays papers.) Also, I think you are defining "open-data paper" that way, making your argument a bit tautological. Those aside, I'm pointing out that the "open-data paper" movement started independently and likely co-temporally, if not earlier than, the free software movement.
    - doesnt_know 7y ago
      > I can simply not distribute it Of course, you haven't infringed on anyone's freedom yet, there are no users. I guess the thing is if you massively overcharge without providing any corresponding service of value the first person that purchases it has the option to throw the source code up on the internet and it can be forked. I guess you also have to find a buyer that is willing to pay you the large sum while also knowing they can't charge others for it without also handing over the source code, so it's doubtful anyone would do so. There are other options though, if a single person or entity owns the copyright for the entire code base, with no outside contributors, they can dual license it. GPL for the public and then commercial proprietary license for businesses. That way the business can build on it if they wish without redistributing the source.
      - eesmith 7y ago
        Exactly! I am free to talk about it, boast about it, write papers about it, etc. While, to go back to my first comment: "If you have useful data, the free software principles say that you might as well charge a lot of money for it, which is not what most chemists and biologists think of in discussion of data openness."
        inimino 7y ago
        If you have useful data, you might as well get a big research grant to publish it. If the buyer (in this case the government or university) were to demand reproducibility, this would cost more, because reproducibility takes work, and it would be worth more; overall scientific progress would accelerate, because reproduction with variation (sounds familiar) has value.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  > Stallman's conception of free software says that you should be able to charge as much as you want. Yes, he was referring to the service of duplicating and mailing tapes pre-Internet. You seem to have mistaken that for a key philosophical issue of some kind, when it's secondary. > reacting to the hyperbole I worked for national labs back in the day. Every dept. wrote their own terminal applications, plotting programs, etc. which consumed serious grant budgets. Free and open source software has been a huge boon to science. The most important? GCC and family. Second is probably Linux, which is GPL. See a pattern yet? It really sounds like you need a history lesson on the FSF, because you're way off base.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Really? Because I think it is part of the key philosophy of free software. Consider #1: I think of an improvement to gcc. I get a copy of the gcc source, modify it, and prove to my satisfaction that it works. I stop at that point, intellectually satiated, tell a few friends, and don't release any software (source or binary). The principles of free software say that I am not forced to release any changes. I am not even obligated to send improvements upstream. Am I wrong about this? Consider #2: The same as above, but I know that Yoyodyne could save $1 million per year with my improvements. I don't tell them. The free software principles say that I have no obligation to tell them. Am I wrong about this? Consider #3: The same as above, but I go to Yoyodyne and say that I'll sell my gcc modification to them - under the GPL - for $250,000. They of course can then redistribute those changes, including back to mainline. Is that contrary to any free software principle? I don't think so, according to my years of reading the history of the FSF and the free software movement. But, suppose you are correct, and Stallman's essay only applies to "the service of duplicating and mailing tapes pre-Internet". If so, there's a simple workaround: Consider #4: I have the idea, implement it, and distribute it to a single organization - a tape duplicating service - and it's that organization which sells the software to Yoyodyne, for $300,000, of which $250,000 comes back to me. (My brother just happens to run the tape service.) Is that against the principles of free software, and if so, how? I don't think Stallman's "selling free software" essay was meant to be so easy to work around. Just because free software is generally distributed at no price or "reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source" (quoting GPLv3), doesn't make it the same as saying that there's an free software principle which obligates that. While the open data movement in science does have the principle that the data should be free, or should only cover the "reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of" data. How am I off base?
- inimino 7y ago
  > Open science people generally want people who publish papers to be required to publish the data. Free software requires that if you publish (or sell) binaries you MUST release the source as well, with full rights to modify and redistribute. You are not required to publish, just as you are not required to release software.
- inimino 7y ago
  > Stallman's conception of free software says that you should be able to charge as much as you want. Yes, once. After this your first customer is now free to undercut you and bring the price as close to zero as they like, as is their first customer, etc. The analogy is: you can charge Nature as much as you want for the rights to publish your paper, but when you do, you have to give them the raw data, in replication-ready form, which they will then publish to anyone they sell the journal to. And Nature's customer is in turn allowed to republish and if they do is required to again make the source data available. I think you're reading more than is warranted into rms selling some emacs tapes by mail order back in the day.

eesmith 7y ago

"Allowed to" is not the same as "required to." Open science people generally want people who publish papers to be required to publish the data. This might be in a public repository, or with the journal, and if there is a fee, that fee should effectively only cover cost. Stallman's conception of free software says that you should be able to charge as much as you want. Hence, these are different concepts. What I mean is that the statement in the original comment, "Now chemists and biologists have started talking about making data openly available and so forth" is wrong. Chemists and biologists "started talking about" this decades ago. The evidence I showed is that it was no later than 1987. It's almost certainly older - I just happened to read about this example. I'm not saying they have nothing in common. I'm reacting to the hyperbole in the idea that the free software movement was instrumental to "the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done".

kqr 7y ago
Well, when you purchase GPL licensed software, the author is required to supply you also with the source code, and you must be allowed to redistribute this (under terms and conditions.) Sure, there are distinctive features for each domain, but in broad strokes, I don't see the above description as very different from the one following: When you purchase access to an open-data paper, the author is required to supply you also with the raw data, and you must be allowed to redistribute this (under terms and conditions.)
- eesmith 7y ago
  "when you purchase GPL" .. sure. But there's nothing to force me to provide you with the software until you've given me money. Even if I used someone else's GPL'ed software in my software, I can simply not distribute it until someone gives me $100,000. "When you purchase access to an open-data paper" Some provisos first. Some papers are gratis, and don't require being purchased. (Eg, author-pays papers.) Also, I think you are defining "open-data paper" that way, making your argument a bit tautological. Those aside, I'm pointing out that the "open-data paper" movement started independently and likely co-temporally, if not earlier than, the free software movement.
  - doesnt_know 7y ago
    > I can simply not distribute it Of course, you haven't infringed on anyone's freedom yet, there are no users. I guess the thing is if you massively overcharge without providing any corresponding service of value the first person that purchases it has the option to throw the source code up on the internet and it can be forked. I guess you also have to find a buyer that is willing to pay you the large sum while also knowing they can't charge others for it without also handing over the source code, so it's doubtful anyone would do so. There are other options though, if a single person or entity owns the copyright for the entire code base, with no outside contributors, they can dual license it. GPL for the public and then commercial proprietary license for businesses. That way the business can build on it if they wish without redistributing the source.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      Exactly! I am free to talk about it, boast about it, write papers about it, etc. While, to go back to my first comment: "If you have useful data, the free software principles say that you might as well charge a lot of money for it, which is not what most chemists and biologists think of in discussion of data openness."
      - inimino 7y ago
        If you have useful data, you might as well get a big research grant to publish it. If the buyer (in this case the government or university) were to demand reproducibility, this would cost more, because reproducibility takes work, and it would be worth more; overall scientific progress would accelerate, because reproduction with variation (sounds familiar) has value.
redis_mlc 7y ago
> Stallman's conception of free software says that you should be able to charge as much as you want. Yes, he was referring to the service of duplicating and mailing tapes pre-Internet. You seem to have mistaken that for a key philosophical issue of some kind, when it's secondary. > reacting to the hyperbole I worked for national labs back in the day. Every dept. wrote their own terminal applications, plotting programs, etc. which consumed serious grant budgets. Free and open source software has been a huge boon to science. The most important? GCC and family. Second is probably Linux, which is GPL. See a pattern yet? It really sounds like you need a history lesson on the FSF, because you're way off base.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Really? Because I think it is part of the key philosophy of free software. Consider #1: I think of an improvement to gcc. I get a copy of the gcc source, modify it, and prove to my satisfaction that it works. I stop at that point, intellectually satiated, tell a few friends, and don't release any software (source or binary). The principles of free software say that I am not forced to release any changes. I am not even obligated to send improvements upstream. Am I wrong about this? Consider #2: The same as above, but I know that Yoyodyne could save $1 million per year with my improvements. I don't tell them. The free software principles say that I have no obligation to tell them. Am I wrong about this? Consider #3: The same as above, but I go to Yoyodyne and say that I'll sell my gcc modification to them - under the GPL - for $250,000. They of course can then redistribute those changes, including back to mainline. Is that contrary to any free software principle? I don't think so, according to my years of reading the history of the FSF and the free software movement. But, suppose you are correct, and Stallman's essay only applies to "the service of duplicating and mailing tapes pre-Internet". If so, there's a simple workaround: Consider #4: I have the idea, implement it, and distribute it to a single organization - a tape duplicating service - and it's that organization which sells the software to Yoyodyne, for $300,000, of which $250,000 comes back to me. (My brother just happens to run the tape service.) Is that against the principles of free software, and if so, how? I don't think Stallman's "selling free software" essay was meant to be so easy to work around. Just because free software is generally distributed at no price or "reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source" (quoting GPLv3), doesn't make it the same as saying that there's an free software principle which obligates that. While the open data movement in science does have the principle that the data should be free, or should only cover the "reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of" data. How am I off base?
inimino 7y ago
> Open science people generally want people who publish papers to be required to publish the data. Free software requires that if you publish (or sell) binaries you MUST release the source as well, with full rights to modify and redistribute. You are not required to publish, just as you are not required to release software.
inimino 7y ago
> Stallman's conception of free software says that you should be able to charge as much as you want. Yes, once. After this your first customer is now free to undercut you and bring the price as close to zero as they like, as is their first customer, etc. The analogy is: you can charge Nature as much as you want for the rights to publish your paper, but when you do, you have to give them the raw data, in replication-ready form, which they will then publish to anyone they sell the journal to. And Nature's customer is in turn allowed to republish and if they do is required to again make the source data available. I think you're reading more than is warranted into rms selling some emacs tapes by mail order back in the day.