About Open Source Science Initiative (OSSci)

[Jacob Barhak]

Greetings,

The last numfocus article came out with a new Open Source Science Initiative.

https://numfocus.medium.com/numfocus-ibm-and-academic-institutions-announce-open-source-science-initiative-ossci-57b83350a17b

I looked at the charter of the group and was surprised there was no definition of what open source consists of. The current definitions that NumFocus has are not up to date and OSSci plans to inherit those according to the charter. - which creates issues. 

Here is a recent paper a group of modelers published that recommends a use of new licenses that are public domain.

• Karr Jonathan, Malik-Sheriff Rahuman S., Osborne James, Gonzalez-Parra Gilberto, Forgoston Eric, Bowness Ruth, Liu Yaling, Thompson Robin, Garira Winston, Barhak Jacob, Rice John, Torres Marcella, Dobrovolny Hana M., Tang Tingting, Waites William, Glazier James A., Faeder James R., Kulesza Alexander. Model Integration in Computational Biology: The Role of Reproducibility, Credibility and Utility. Frontiers in Systems Biology, Vol 2. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsysb.2022.822606

I looked at the OSSci newsletter and could not locate a place of open discussion where we can raise such issues - so I am raising it in the licensing group - yet this has to be discussed with a wider range of topics - there are more issues other than licenses that should be discussed. Can someone open a channel for open discussions?

Hopefully someone already did. 

                 Jacob

--
Jacob Barhak Ph.D. 
Sole Proprietor, Software Developer, and Computational Disease Modeler
https://sites.google.com/view/jacob-barhak/home

[Stefan van der Walt]

Hi Jacob, 

We've discussed the NF licensing issue here before. The result was that NF accepts OSSI licenses by default but that exceptions (such as PD) will be considered by the board on a case by case basis. 

I cannot uncover from your writing any specific concerns related to OSSCI. If you can make your concerns more explicit, we can take a look at how to address them. 

Best regards, 

Stéfan 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NumFOCUS Licensing Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to licensing+...@numfocus.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/numfocus.org/d/msgid/licensing/CAM_y%2B3SD5eymQUY7yGBb4nyb0LRTVbdGjCBDUH91hDc1QATRng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jacob Barhak]

Hi Stefan,

The discussion was never closed - you just redirected it to this channel. 

I am still waiting for the meeting minutes that were promised. Here is the link: https://groups.google.com/g/numfocus/c/2PoF-n2OT2Q/m/FID08c5xAgAJ

Never saw them - once you release those we can continue the discussion. I sent multiple reminders - perhaps you can 

now make good on this promise and release the meeting minutes.

Also, the definition of open source  is important - I showed you multiple examples that are now detaching from what OSI visions - it is time to reconsider older approaches. 

What I am asking now is to open an open channel for the Open Source Science Initiative so we can discuss those issues - I did not see such a channel or even an email of someone in charge I can write to.  Hopefully it is not too hard to do. 

And please release those meeting minutes - it has been over a year - this is far from proper...

                  Jacob

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/numfocus.org/d/msgid/licensing/b2ade62d-4a9f-447d-8210-fe627b2898f1%40www.fastmail.com.

[Stefan van der Walt]

Hi Jacob, 

The NF board meeting notes are linked from the website. You may find them here:

https://numfocus.github.io/numfocus-board/2021/

Specifically:

https://numfocus.github.io/numfocus-board/2021/20210406/

I am on leave at the moment, so please excuse any delay in or lack of response.

Best regards, 

Stéfan 

[Jacob Barhak]

Thanks Stefan,

Finally you publish something. I was waiting for this link for a long time and asked for it multiple times.

This does not show a real in-depth discussion  also it does not show the member votes or comments on the topic. 

We had a longer and more in-depth  discussion online for sure. I would certainly expect more details from an organization that deals with things "open". 

For example Stephan, how did you vote and why? 

How did the board members vote besides you? 

Did you consider all CC licenses?

Did you study CC-0 before voting?

What was the discussion about?

Finally, when were those meeting minutes published? For sure I had to wait a long time and asked multiple times for those. 

I am asking those questions because it has to do with the definition of open source as a whole - I indicated it in the past. The only thing I have in the meeting minutes is that you trust another organization - I showed you other organizations that have no issue with CC licenses and showed you recent examples of use as well as a large group recommendation from a large group of scientists. So there is a discussion to be had there about what does open mean really - especially if you keep on using this word. 

I want to resurface this discussion, especially since you are planning one more venue that inherits this decision.  

Also, please open a channel for Open Source Science Initiative - it makes sense it ahs an open channel if it has the word "open" in it. Hopefully there is such a channel and I just did not see it - if this is the case I apologize.

Take your time on vacation - you have enough board members that can respond and open the channel and provide some answers. 

I will be happy to resume this discussion when you are back from vacation. There is a lot to discuss.

                Jacob

[Stefan van der Walt]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022, at 13:25, Jacob Barhak wrote:

Finally you publish something. I was waiting for this link for a long time and asked for it multiple times.

These are published frequently, and are linked to from the NumFOCUS website; I'm glad I could direct you to the right place.

This does not show a real in-depth discussion  also it does not show the member votes or comments on the topic. 

We don't provide word-for-word reports on board discussions, but we discussed this to the board's satisfaction. I don't recall any notable additions to the online discussion.

For example Stephan, how did you vote and why? 

It was a 0-5-0 vote. Personally, I don't consider public domain or CC to be well suited to open source libraries. It's great for data, tutorials, and code snippets.

Did you study CC-0 before voting?

Yes, I am very familiar with CC-0.

I am asking those questions because it has to do with the definition of open source as a whole - I indicated it in the past. The only thing I have in the meeting minutes is that you trust another organization - I showed you other organizations that have no issue with CC licenses and showed you recent examples of use as well as a large group recommendation from a large group of scientists. So there is a discussion to be had there about what does open mean really - especially if you keep on using this word. 

The board's decision leaves us open to accept any license, so I would not get hung up on whether OSSI includes CC in their definition.

I want to resurface this discussion, especially since you are planning one more venue that inherits this decision.  

We can see if anyone else is interested in re-engaging on that front.

Also, please open a channel for Open Source Science Initiative - it makes sense it ahs an open channel if it has the word "open" in it. Hopefully there is such a channel and I just did not see it - if this is the case I apologize.

I will leave this to the organizers of that project to consider.

Stéfan

[Jacob Barhak]

Thanks Stefan,

This is progress. Although late and this was not made available at the time for discussion and there was no response when I asked for it later. I am still unclear when they specific minutes were published - you did not provide a date - can you look at the timestamp of the file? I hope you keep track. 

When you are back from vacation we can open the CC0 discussion since your argument of not being well suited for open source libraries is arguable. I will wait a bit before starting the discussion to let you do your vacation - yet it's important and there are alternative examples.

From your answers I understand that all board members voted the same way - what was the knowledge of the others on this topic at the time of the vote? Did they all have extensive knowledge of CC licenses or where you the lead there? 

And Please Stefan, let the other board members answer please - you can do your vacation. Your position is clear and we can discuss this when you return .

You see, your decision blocks innovation - this is one of the arguments for CC0 - if you are replicating your decision by allows sub projects inherit from it, you are propelling long term stagnation. Its important to better define open and allowing an exception to the rule is not enough. 

May you have a nice vacation and come back ready for a serious discussion. 

                 Jacob