"Publish your source to publish your paper" exception to GPL3. Would it be legal ? Would it be ethic ?

[Hugo Roy]

↪ 2015-09-30 Wed 16:40, Antonello Lobianco (not reply) <blackhole at lobianco.org>:
> Sorry, I forgot.. the motivation in not only the ethic of the software
> itself.. is that too often (at least in my sector, forest economics but
> economics in general as well) you see "results" arising from some sort of
> models that are described more or less in detail in the paper, but which
> software implementation is not available to really check the assumptions
> and the logic of the model..
> I think it's a shame of the sector..

I believe what you are trying to fix is the fact that articles of
scientific nature are not always “reproducible” or checkable because
they're not making the source code available.

I agree that it's an important problem and that the ethical thing to
do when you conduct or publish such research is to make source code
available.

But I don't think that the proposed licensing tactic is the right way
to address that. It's not a matter of software freedom.

Maybe you should look at “open access” tactics and push scientific
journals to require making the software used available for other
scientists.

Best,

-- 
Hugo Roy – Free Software Foundation Europe https://fsfe.org/about/roy
 
Please use cryptography for email: see https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
Merci d’utiliser la cryptographie pour l’email : voir https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/fr/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20150930/ed81b041/attachment.sig>