Hi there, just two quick remarks:
> open-source (As defined by http://www.opensource.org/.) On page two you quote OSI's OS definition and assume that everybody is familiar with the term open-source as they define it. This is definitely not the case as the OSI definition requires more than just the words "open source" imply. I suggest to list their ten requirements and justify why they should apply to (research) math software. As the paper is about justifying grants for OS, it should be defined properly. > If the program is proprietary then inspection is impossible Also on page two the argument about non-verifiability is made. I think this should be restricted a bit more. E.g., I cannot make this argument with a large part of the crypto community because it is usually trivial to check whether a result is correct. I do understand that this is not the case with many problems in pure mathematics but I still think this distinction should be made clear. Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 _www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb _jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
