CCL:G: License what you want. Open what you want. No comparison?

 Sent to CCL by: "Egon Willighagen" [egon.willighagen .. gmail.com]
 On Feb 3, 2008 1:44 PM, Pablo Echenique echenique.p.:.gmail.com
 <owner-chemistry:_:ccl.net> wrote:
 > The Open Source movement, with which I agree in most essential points,
 > is being increasingly infected with radical supporters which, like in
 > Middle Age, ride every day to Jerusalem to kill the unholy Proprietary
 > Defenders.
 There is no OpenSource *movement*... never existed, never will. So, it
 can't be infected either. However, there are many people releasing
 opensource software; and equally many opinions.
 What is a problem, is that a lot of people do not understand licensing
 issues. I'm sure some of you understand the difference between the GPL
 and the LGPL... but certainly not all.
 Another issue clouding the issues is the OpenSource versus
 ProprietarySource is *not* about FreeSource versus CommercialSource.
 A third issue causing trouble, particularly for science, if the
 difference between OpenSource and OpenProjects. One can, without
 trouble, dump some project as OpenSource; give it non-English
 comments, and no documentation whatsoever, and it is no use to science
 at all. It happens, really. On the other hand, a proprietary code base
 might simply implement a detailed description of some algorithm
 published in literature and discussed as such.
 So, there are three orthogonal axis here, and you may find projects in
 any corner:
 - open source versus proprietary source
 - free source versus commercial source
 - open projects versus closed projects
 Finally, radical supporters are found in any 'group' of people, if you
 really must create a couple of groups. I only need to say PRISM, and
 the things must be clear...
 > In my opinion, all development models MUST be tried before deciding
 > which is best. And maybe the final, not so surprising answer is that
 > the most efficiency is obtained in a world in which all options have
 > at least one strong representant.
 Umm... why one for each group? Why strong?
 For many people who like OpenSource, it is the freedoms are the key
 thing. I am not sure I like single strong representatives.
 > Moreover, if Open Source is the only answer to scientific software, we
 > will know it when we prove it, not when we declare it.
 Science progresses by sharing thoughts and theories. Open Source is a
 method of publishing what you are doing; and, I must make that clear,
 a superior way of publishing an implementation than a PDF document is.
 <snip>
 > However, I do not find anything unethical in the way a private firm
 > such as Gaussian Inc. works. In the free market, nobody forces you to
 > buy a product. You don't like Gaussian's performance, decisions, name,
 > colour of the CD case, etc.? Just don't buy it. You have other
 > options.
 Well, there's actually a fourth axis: performant code versus slow code.
 > I prefer to live in a world in which Gaussian exists, so I have one
 > more option, which I can freely choose to take or not.
 Exactly. That's what freedom is about.
 > I use Gaussian,
 > GAMESS, Aces and Dalton, and I consider Gaussian a good overall
 > application. My University has voluntarily signed a contract with
 > Gaussian Inc. in which the conditions of use are clearly stated. If I
 > freely chose to break some of that conditions (like comparing results
 > to other codes), it is perfectly licit that Gaussian takes the
 > appropriate actions. It is the same that I would do.
 Mind that some proprietary licenses (I have no clue about Gaussian
 license; not speaking about that) have know to include clauses what
 you may or may not do in terms of development (thus study!)
 alternative solutions.
 This is, I believe, clearly bad for science.
 Egon
 --
 ----
 http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/