[Insight-users] Reproducible results and semi-open science

[Alexandre GOUAILLARD]

LGPL/QPL FREE FOR RESEARCH .... Sounds a lot like CGAL to me ....

Alex.


On 4/7/08 3:40 PM, "Andriy Fedorov" <fedorov at bwh.harvard.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am looking for some expert advice. Currently, there are pieces of
> software, which allow academic and research use royalty-free. With
> such software, reproducibility is still important, I believe, but you
> cannot call it "open science", because there are things you can and
> cannot do, thus the term "semi-open science"...
> 
> Here is the situation. Let's say there is software "A", which is open
> for academic and research use without any additional arrangements, but
> not for commercial use. Let's say someone produced software "B", which
> they want to release under non-restrictive http://www.opensource.org/
> license, but that software "B" is using software "A" (without any
> modifications -- header files/linked libraries). To be more specific,
> consider two situations:
> 
> 1) software "A" is released under the open source MIT license with the
> following explicit exceptions:
> 
> "Distribution of  modified  versions  of this code is permissible UNDER
> THE CONDITION THAT  THIS CODE AND ANY MODIFICATIONS  MADE TO IT IN THE
> SAME SOURCE FILES  *****.h AND ****.c  REMAIN UNDER  COPYRIGHT OF
> THE  ORIGINAL AUTHOR,  BOTH  SOURCE AND OBJECT  CODE  ARE MADE  FREELY
> AVAILABLE  WITHOUT   CHARGE,   AND  CLEAR   NOTICE  IS  GIVEN  OF  THE
> MODIFICATIONS.
> 
> Distribution of this code for  any  commercial purpose  is permissible
> ONLY BY DIRECT ARRANGEMENT WITH THE COPYRIGHT OWNER."
> 
> 2) software "A" has some pieces released under LGPL, and some pieces
> under QPL. Software "B" uses pieces from both groups.
> 
> I believe, that in both cases there is no violation of either of the
> three licenses by distributing software "B" under open source license.
> Although, under LGPL, the responsibility of following the license by
> the act of linking software "B" with software "A" is the
> responsibility of the end user. Am I correct?
> 
> Practical question: what is the proper way to submit software "B" to
> Insight Journal? Software "A" is not included in the default
> configuration of the submission check system, so I am not sure how
> software "B", which depends on "A", could be tested.
> 
> Finally, is there an interest for the Insight Journal to receive a
> paper about open software "B", which is using semi-open software "A"?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help!
> 
> Andriy Fedorov
> _______________________________________________
> Insight-users mailing list
> Insight-users at itk.org
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users