Policy talk:Open access policy/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Greg (WMF) in topic GPL?
Content deleted Content added
→Niggles: GPL |
Greg (WMF) (talk | contribs) →GPL?: reply to Oliver |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
== GPL? == |
== 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) |
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) |
||
* To be clear, it says "GPL or any other OSI-approved license." I assume we called it out for the same reason we called out BY-SA (our specific community norms). [[User:Greg (WMF)|Greg (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Greg (WMF)|talk]]) 18:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:29, 17 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)
- To be clear, it says "GPL or any other OSI-approved license." I assume we called it out for the same reason we called out BY-SA (our specific community norms). Greg (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)