Hi, On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:09 PM, William Waites <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 4 May 2013 07:20:52 -0700, "Marc Joffe" <[email protected]> > said: > > > What tools one uses to > > assemble the open data is not important (as long as the tools' > > licenses do not restrict distribution of the work product). > > Marc, I don't have a strong opinion about whether one should only > write open access things about open access. I think the moral argument > is a bit silly -- the justification should be that if you want your > work to matter, to be built upon, it has to be accessible. In > scientific and quasi-scientific disciplines where reproducability > of results matters, the whole process must be open otherwise if > nobody can try the same experiment and come up with the same results, > it might all have been made up. No need for moral arguments (which > tend to get people's backs up anyways).
I've often heard this opinion expressed, and it's perfectly true that any moral argument can make some people remarkably unhappy. However, I believe the moral argument is stronger than the practical one, and I disagree that we should avoid the moral argument because it upsets people. I realize we're not going to resolve this on the list - I'm only saying this because I want to be clear that the orthodoxy you express, I do not share, Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
