tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post114733250179795992..comments2024-03-13T07:14:55.283+01:00Comments on chem-bla-ics: New open access journal Source Code for Biology and MedicineEgon Willighagenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07470952136305035540noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post-1166553058812730632006-12-19T19:30:00.000+01:002006-12-19T19:30:00.000+01:00I disagree with the anonymous comment. Legally, pu...I disagree with the anonymous comment. Legally, public domain specifically refers to creative works for which the copyright has expired (at the present moment anything created/published before 1910 or something). Public domain material can be used for any purpose whatsoever (ie you can take it and recommercialize it).<BR/><BR/>The reason the open source licence works is that copyright specifically prohibits modification, duplication or distribution by default. Open source licences relax that restriction, allowing anyone to modify or distribute the copyrighted material IF they agree to the stipulations in the licence; ie all modifications are also covered by the same license, and if you distribute the program you must also make available the source code. But once the copyright expires on a piece of open source code (or any code for that matter, even proprietary) then anybody can take it and do with it anything that they like.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous cause I don't have a blogger account.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post-1147353567043978772006-05-11T15:19:00.000+02:002006-05-11T15:19:00.000+02:00Hi anonymous,First, thanx your insights.Indeed cop...Hi anonymous,<BR/><BR/>First, thanx your insights.<BR/><BR/>Indeed copyright and licenses is not the same. OK, so 'public domain' does not mean it has no copyright anymore. But what *does* it mean then? I also do not understand your statement about true open source licenses: what's an example of a false open source license? And why are open source licenses supposed to be public domain licenses?<BR/><BR/>For example, Wikipedia states that things from the public domain may be used by anyone for anything. This is certainly not the case for open source licenses like GPL or many of the Creative Commons licenses. Would you consider something like BSD to be one of the few true open source licenses?Egon Willighagenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470952136305035540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post-1147349731823078032006-05-11T14:15:00.000+02:002006-05-11T14:15:00.000+02:00I know nothing about the intent of this new journa...I know nothing about the intent of this new journal's editorial board or their intent, so this isn't intended to necessarily respond directly to that, just to resolve some common misconceptions about "public domain"<BR/><BR/>"public domain" does not necessarily mean "copyright relinquished" or "copyright expired". One common (though some pedants will argue that it is incorrect) use of "public domain" is to mean one of those two things, but in general the concept of public domain is much wider. Remember that copyright and license are different concepts, and open source is about license, not copyright. All true open source licenses are public domain licenses, regardless of who owns the copyright.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post-1147349542108956962006-05-11T14:12:00.000+02:002006-05-11T14:12:00.000+02:00Thanks for the info ! :)Unlike sourceforge, submit...Thanks for the info ! :)<BR/>Unlike sourceforge, submiting a paper this journal will allow scientists to get a publication in a peer reviewed paper and as you know, a publication list may be critical for a carreer. Moreover, I hope this journal will allow programmers/me(!) (not pure theorists) to get a publication.<BR/><BR/>PierrePierre Lindenbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13765837643388003852noreply@blogger.com