On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:05:51 +0100 Ole Streicher wrote: [...] > Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> writes: [...] > > I think that a work that includes data (such as the electric charge of > > an electron) *can* be in source form, without the need to ship all the > > raw measurements that brought us to the determination of good values for > > these data, or to build-depend on the whole analysis process that > > brought us to that same determination. > > > > What's good about the definition of source is that it is flexible > > enough to cope with many corner cases. > > I see this differently: The term "source" is misleading when applied to > research data.
I don't think we need to define new guidelines for assessing the freeness of scientific data. The DFSG and the definition of source may be applied to scientific data as well. This is possible because of the flexibility of the definition of source, as I said. Moreover, there is no clear-cut line between scientific data and works of authorship. The boundary is blurred, as your example about astrophotography shows... Hence, we cannot apply different "rules", depending on this blurred distinction. [...] > In science, this is however differently: The (primary) creative work > here are the research articles, and there is a whole culture around how > to value them and how to ensure freedom of science. Much older, > independently and differently from DFSG: Research articles are usually > not free [...] The fact that many technical-scientific research articles are not DFSG-free is an issue in itself, in my opinion. But this is another (long) story... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpPUKGC2nO9D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
