In article <lqk814-a5k.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> | The Open Source process is built on the the same principles that work
> >> | in any scientific environment. You share knowledge. You cooperate.
> >
> > Scientific knowledge is usually shared without any strings attached, so
> > the above only applies to open source under licenses like the Apache
> > license, or the BSD license. There's nothing like GPL in science.
> >
>
> Utter and total tosh, as ever. If you use someone else's work in
> science, you are required to show your sources, otherwise you are
> plagiarising.
>
> Scientific method has /always/ followed the GPL route.
You have to give credit in scientific publications. That corresponds to
the classic BSD license, not to GPL.
However, that's not what I meant by no strings attached. Here's the
situation I was thinking of. Say a scientist publishes a paper. Let's
use Peter Shor's seminal paper on factoring on a quantum computer for an
example. Suppose another scientist reads this paper, considers the
problem of building a practical quantum computer, and solves the problem
of quantum decoherence, and anything else standing in the way of
actually building the thing. This second scientist is able to build a
practical quantum computer that can use Shor's algorithm to factor
real-life GPG keys, which he manufactures and sells, and makes a lot of
money.
Must this second scientist cite Shor? Nope. He can sell his device as
a black box. He doesn't have to tell anyone he's using Shor's algorithm.
Must this second scientist disclose how he solved the problem of
decoherence? Again, nope. He's able to use Shor's work, without having
to give anything back to Shor or the rest of the scientific community.
There's nothing remotely similar to GPL in this.
That's what I mean by no strings attached. A scientific paper is out
there for anyone to use, with about the only restriction being that they
can't claim it as their own work.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
