Policy talk:Open access policy/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Ironholds in topic GPL?
Content deleted Content added
→Niggles: new section |
→Niggles: GPL |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Hi, it's a good step forward. Just on the micro-level, why the caps for "free license" and (inconsistent with the title) "open access" in the main text? [[User:Tony1|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font ></span>]] 06:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
Hi, it's a good step forward. Just on the micro-level, why the caps for "free license" and (inconsistent with the title) "open access" in the main text? [[User:Tony1|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font ></span>]] 06:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
== GPL? == |
|||
Why is the emphasis on the GPL? Most modern research code I see is MIT licensed. We shouldn't call out a viral license exclusively. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 17:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:16, 16 June 2015
ORCID
Excellent initiative. I suggest that we encourage, and eventually require, researchers to supply their ORCID identifier as part of their proposal. Many research funding bodies and publishers are now making this requirement. (Disclosure: I am Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Niggles
Hi, it's a good step forward. Just on the micro-level, why the caps for "free license" and (inconsistent with the title) "open access" in the main text? Tony (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
GPL?
Why is the emphasis on the GPL? Most modern research code I see is MIT licensed. We shouldn't call out a viral license exclusively. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)