Policy talk:Open access policy/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→GPL?: MIT is acceptable |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* 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) |
* 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) |
||
*: Yes, but the GPL isn't our community norm around research, but instead our norm around production software. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 18:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
*: Yes, but the GPL isn't our community norm around research, but instead our norm around production software. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 18:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::It's our standard policy to prefer the GPL for WMF-funded software. Permissive licenses like MIT are also acceptable. Thanks, [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:29, 22 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)
- Thank you, Andy @Pigsonthewing: for that suggestion! We will keep this in mind as we monitor the effectiveness of the existing policy. MBrar (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 19 June 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)
- Good catch! @Tony1: I've updated the policy to correct the capitalization. The capitalized "free license" refers to a defined term within the policy (see the link in the policy). Thanks for letting us know :) MBrar (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's a pretty awful change. The lawyer class has a mania for capping, just as they try to mow down the standard use of punctuation. Both make legal text less readable by normal people who should be able to access that kind of text as a matter of common justice and governance. I don't buy the argument that you have to cap everything in sight that might be remotely specific—what "free license" means in this document will never be ambiguous. So it's become worse in my view. Tony (talk) 10:10, 20 June 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)
- Yes, but the GPL isn't our community norm around research, but instead our norm around production software. Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's our standard policy to prefer the GPL for WMF-funded software. Permissive licenses like MIT are also acceptable. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)