Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
Ludwig, defending the ideals is the best thing one can do in his life. With the pragmatic view, you propose, we would stay till nowadays "on the trees eating bananas". Radovan Ludwig Keller a crit: Armel: as in the past such debates are mute and go nowhere; these days, fame and fortunes are gained by those who copy the fastest and most efficiently or as one of your most brilliant countrymen, H. Balzac, put it: "behind every fortune there is a crime"; once you accept this you can go on with life... and don't have to waste your time defending ideals which seem to be a thing of the past; L. Keller Armel Le Bail [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 07/07/2004 05:23:06 AM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: "Your operating model... is a stellar example of how one might integrate with MySQL while still adhering to confines of the GPL or in other words, managing to keep your product open source". Thanks for the confirmation. Exactly what I said : advertisement for extremely good commercial products. "Stellar example", wow. Sure, nothing is comparable, the product has not any competitor. Only one star in the sky. You cannot look elsewhere. The star is the most brilliant one. Impossible to be disappointed. Adding 2 more cents about the possibility for a special treatment in scientific journals of these manuscripts which are totally devoted to the presentation of a commercial software or of a commercial database (any commercial product, including the NIST standard reference materials, diffractometers, etc). If all these papers in scientific journals on commercial software, which you will never be able to afford, were paid as advertisement pages by the software vendors, this would decrease the cost of the journals for all peoples. In a sense, the mass is paying for the advertisements of Acelrys (etc). Just like if your newspaper was full of advertisements for Porsche, Ferrari, BMW and Mercedes cars (not any french car here) and like if the cost of a sample of the newspaper was including the cost of these advertisement pages. We all know that without advertisments, these newspapers would be 3 or 4 times more expensive. Advertisements is the rule for the presentation of diffractometers and so on, why not for any commercial product, including the software and databases ? Including the FIZ-Karlsruhe-NIST-ICSD stellar example ? I just try to help to make a more clear difference between the knowledge traditionally shared between scientists, without restriction, and the money-making knowledge sold by companies having sometimes a "you can't do this for that" language. Armel -- Radovan Cerny Laboratoire de Cristallographie 24, quai Ernest-Ansermet CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland Phone : [+[41] 22] 37 964 50, FAX : [+[41] 22] 37 961 08 mailto : [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.unige.ch/sciences/crystal/cerny/rcerny.htm
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
(i) if the parameters are not just a few numbers derived from the database, but are a significant part of the database (like a list of all interatomic distances in the database) (ii) if part of the study was directly paid by the CCDC But if neither (i) or (ii) are true, i.e. there are just a few parameters derived from a bought copy of the database, then this is a clear abuse of the data. What next ? Will we have to pay royalties every time a new structure is solved using some information mined from the database ??? I understand the will to protect copying raw data from the database, but NOT derived information. This is the kind of abuse of intellectual property that is damaging to innovation and algorithms improvement, disregarding the commercial/open-source nature of the software. I'm not even sure it's legal to pretend 'owning' such parameters, unless we are in case (i) or (ii). Neither (i) nor (ii) apply in this case. Nevertheless, according to Dr. Hofmann, the CCDC claims a right on all information/data which have been derived from the CSD database in the database licensing conditions. Perhaps we (Crystal Impact) should claim a right on all crystal structures which have been solved using Endeavour.. ;-)) Holger *** Dr. Holger Putz Crystal Impact Dr. K. Brandenburg Dr. H. Putz GbR Postfach 12 51 53002 Bonn Germany Tel . : +49-228-9813643 Fax : +49-228-9813644 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.crystalimpact.com ***
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
...or better, publish the parameters (hint, hint) That's an excellent idea! I will forward it to Dr. Hofmann. Thank you! Holger *** Dr. Holger Putz Crystal Impact Dr. K. Brandenburg Dr. H. Putz GbR Postfach 12 51 53002 Bonn Germany Tel . : +49-228-9813643 Fax : +49-228-9813644 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.crystalimpact.com ***
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
...it's clearly an abuse and probably illegal... So just use the algorithm... and let them sue... ...or better, publish the parameters (hint, hint) That's an excellent idea! I will forward it to Dr. Hofmann. OK, I tried to keep this amusing, but this is getting serious. I am not in any way connected with either Crystal Impact or the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre CCDC, but I am responsible for this mailing list. I am all in favour of a serious debate on this question, but now we have one commercial company criticising another without hearing from the other side. And responsible people advocating behaviour that may be illegal. Databases are protected by European law. Their value is not just the isolated structures obtained by individual scientists, which are published for everyone to read, but the relations between these structures and the ability to search for, compare and derive relations between structures. Indeed Dr Putz has said as much. You can argue as you will about the morality of having to pay for using databases. But the law says that a license for either CCDC or Endeavour is an agreement between two consenting parties. If the license says you can use the database/software for some things and not others, and you break that agreement, then you are breaking the law. Just don't use the database/software if you don't agree with the conditions. Use the published literature or free software (and no, that does not mean simply copying individual structures or computer code from other databases/programs :-) The facts as I understand them are: 1) Both Crystal Impact and CCDC are commercial companies who charge a fee for their products. 2) CCDC is also a non-profit organisation that works closely with IUCr and is essential to the international crystallography community. 4) Both Crystal Impact and CCDC sell software to solve structures from powder data; CCDC also have the cost of assembling the data from the literature, while Crystal Impact simply use results obtained from CCDC's data collection. 5) Dr Hofmann has presumably entered into an agreement (contract or license) with CCDC to allow him to use their collection of data for specific scientific purposes, but not I suppose for commercial purposes. He has paid a fee for the right to use this database for that purpose. 6) Crystal Impact have apparently entered an agreement with Dr Hofmann to allow them to use his excellent work for commercial benefit. I do not know if any fee has been proposed, but that would be the usual practice. The correct procedure is for Crystal Impact to contract with CCDC for the use of the database for a mutually agreed fee, such that both companies profit, as well as ordinary scientists like you and me (who are mostly paid salaries, just like the people who work for these companies :-) Even Armel and I have to pay to eat... which reminds me that it is lunchtime again :-) Alan. Alan Hewat, ILL Grenoble, FRANCE [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax (33) 4.76.20.76.48 (33) 4.76.20.72.13 (.26 Mme Guillermet) http://www.ill.fr/dif/AlanHewat.htm ___
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
Even Armel and I have to pay to eat... And a brain works better if the stomach is not empty... So, this story may have convinced you that people working on proteins are lucky with that open PDB database, that people working on nucleic acids are lucky with that open NDB database, that people working on minerals are lucky with that open AMCSD database, and that you are unlucky to depend on CSD and ICSD (and worst, to depend on ICDD). It may be time to admit that depositing your data to CSD and ICSD is not sufficient : continue to do so but also send a copy of your CIF files to the open COD database. This is legal. Best regards, Armel http://www.crystallography.net/
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
On jeudi 8 Juillet 2004 12:07, Alan Hewat wrote: I am all in favour of a serious debate on this question, but now we have one commercial company criticising another without hearing from the other side. And responsible people advocating behaviour that may be illegal. I would really like to hear the other party, which is why I tried to list a few possibilities under which the ccdc position would be understandable. Databases are protected by European law. Their value is not just the isolated structures obtained by individual scientists, which are published for everyone to read, but the relations between these structures and the ability to search for, compare and derive relations between structures. Indeed Dr Putz has said as much. The parameters obtained from the database are an _extremely_ far derivation from the database itself. I am a strong defendant of intellectual property, but there has to be reasonable limits, which you do not seem to accept. You can argue as you will about the morality of having to pay for using databases. But the law says that a license for either CCDC or Endeavour is an agreement between two consenting parties. If the license says you can use the database/software for some things and not others, and you break that agreement, then you are breaking the law. This is only true if the license agreement is itself in agreement with the law and not overly broad. Do you really believe that every license agreement is a Word Of God ? If it says that CCDC has rights over _every_ derived works, it is too broad - period. If the CCDC does not (and I do _not_ know the actual policy, I hope they respond and quench this debate) want to acknowledge a limit to these derived works, then the _only_ way to determine the actual limit is in front of a court, unfortunately. Hence my suggestion : I am not very fond of legal litigation, but sometimes it is the only way to sort things out, and if things go the american way, it is the way of the future. But what do you think personnaly, Alan (an others) ? What limits would you put on the derived works of a database ? What is acceptable: A) publishing all raw coordinates of all structures B) publishing all interatomic distances in all structures C) publishing distributions (curves) of interatomic distances D) publishing interatomic distances in a few (10) structures E) publishing an energetic law (with a few parameters) which was validated with information from the database F) nothing. To me, A-B are clearly unacceptable, C-D should be at least tolerated in a scientific community, and E is clearly acceptable. -- Vincent Favre-Nicolin Université Joseph Fourier http://v.favrenicolin.free.fr ObjCryst Fox : http://objcryst.sourceforge.net
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
What a fine debate Armel and Alan have given to us! I can agree with Alan's point that the CCDC would want a slice of the money that Crystal Impact would receive. But Crystal Impact's statements didn't mention fiduciary gain being an issue. I don't know if they accurately describe the situation, but would hope they would be crafty enough to release a free plugin or to follow Alan's suggestion of offering a modest sum to the CCDC for the value derived from their data. Or even offer to introduce Dr. Hoffman's work into CCDC's competing products. Because it is also derived work, the CCDC may also have a problem with Dr. Hoffman publishing the potential (especially if it was a thinly veiled attempt to get around this conflict). I would sincerely hope that such work could enter the literature, but there is nothing forcing the CCDC to allow this. In any case, we should all learn a lesson from the effort Crystal Impact has apparently wasted developing functionality that they can't release: read those EULAs. If there is any question, ask it before you develop! --Richard Karnesky
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
I have to agree with Vincent that I find aspects of CCDC's apparent actions troubling and warrant discussion even if all parties reach a happy agreement behind closed doors. If the CCDC claims partial ownership of everything derived from their database then how far does that go? Can they prevent someone from publishing an average bond distance mined from 10,000 structures? Do they require that the entire staff of the CCDC be included as coauthors? Alan is correct that there is much that we do not know: What information has Dr. Hoffmann has supplied only to Crystal Impact and what information is in the public domain? Since much is unclear, I will offer one possible argument on the CCDC's behalf. Academic researchers are given access to the CSD (and other) databases for academic (public) research at rates considerably reduced from that of commercial research. If someone makes a discovery from these academic facilities but rather than disclose it in the open literature, instead decides to use that information for private gain (either for the researcher or the employer's institution) then from my perspective this academic researcher/institution is cheating by paying academic rates, but performing commercial research. (I am not suggesting that I know this to be the case here). The CCDC is a valuable resource to our scientific community. The CCDC should take all steps needed to protect their intellectual property -- which is their compilation of data (note anyone can compile their own data collection from the literature by simply typing in all the coordinates again), plus the wealth of tools they have built over the decades, as well as the comments and corrections they have created and include in their data collection. I think it reasonable that the CCDC forge agreements with organizations that would mine their data collection for profit. If on the other hand, the CCDC works to prevent the open publication of research results that derive from their data collection, or uses their size to prevent companies from producing software that competes with their own products, then I think they can no longer claim to be a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of chemistry and crystallography for the public benefit... (I am also not suggesting that I know this to be the case here). What exactly is the case here? I don't claim to know. I would hope that Dr. Hoffmann will publish all of his results from use of the CSD. At that point I would hope that the CCDC would not feel that algorithms or software that implements this public information is their intellectual property, unless developed within the CCDC. I will wait quietly and see what we learn over the months to come. Brian
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
On jeudi 8 Juillet 2004 17:19, Alan Hewat wrote: They are informed of the statements made by individuals on this mailing list, but feel that on-going commercial negotiations are not a subject for public debate. Senior CCDC management, including the people in charge of the negotiations, are absent at meetings, and no further statement will be made until after the ACA meeting (26th July). I of course agree with you that the service of such databases is extremely valuable, sorry if this was not clear. But I still hope that their statement can clarify (at least approximately - I understand how delicate it would be to produce an official, legally binding document) how far derived work are considered as still being licensed. This is interesting far beyond Endeavour's fate. All crystallographers use databases to derive work. So wait and see -- Vincent Favre-Nicolin Université Joseph Fourier http://v.favrenicolin.free.fr ObjCryst Fox : http://objcryst.sourceforge.net
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
Thank you for this interesting discussion. Does this also apply to the ICSD database? I have made tables from data taken from ICSD - am I going to go to jail? - Kurt - Original Message - From: Brian H. Toby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 9:00 AM I have to agree with Vincent that I find aspects of CCDC's apparent actions troubling and warrant discussion even if all parties reach a happy agreement behind closed doors. If the CCDC claims partial ownership of everything derived from their database then how far does that go? Can they prevent someone from publishing an average bond distance mined from 10,000 structures? Do they require that the entire staff of the CCDC be included as coauthors? Alan is correct that there is much that we do not know: What information has Dr. Hoffmann has supplied only to Crystal Impact and what information is in the public domain? Since much is unclear, I will offer one possible argument on the CCDC's behalf. Academic researchers are given access to the CSD (and other) databases for academic (public) research at rates considerably reduced from that of commercial research. If someone makes a discovery from these academic facilities but rather than disclose it in the open literature, instead decides to use that information for private gain (either for the researcher or the employer's institution) then from my perspective this academic researcher/institution is cheating by paying academic rates, but performing commercial research. (I am not suggesting that I know this to be the case here). The CCDC is a valuable resource to our scientific community. The CCDC should take all steps needed to protect their intellectual property -- which is their compilation of data (note anyone can compile their own data collection from the literature by simply typing in all the coordinates again), plus the wealth of tools they have built over the decades, as well as the comments and corrections they have created and include in their data collection. I think it reasonable that the CCDC forge agreements with organizations that would mine their data collection for profit. If on the other hand, the CCDC works to prevent the open publication of research results that derive from their data collection, or uses their size to prevent companies from producing software that competes with their own products, then I think they can no longer claim to be a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of chemistry and crystallography for the public benefit... (I am also not suggesting that I know this to be the case here). What exactly is the case here? I don't claim to know. I would hope that Dr. Hoffmann will publish all of his results from use of the CSD. At that point I would hope that the CCDC would not feel that algorithms or software that implements this public information is their intellectual property, unless developed within the CCDC. I will wait quietly and see what we learn over the months to come. Brian
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
I have made tables from data taken from ICSD - am I going to go to jail? Depends. If you are going to make your fortune from it and retire to the south of France on the proceeds, then yes, certainly ! In that case, you had better read the fine print on http://www.fiz-informationsdienste.de/en/agb/icsd.html Alan.
Re: Next Endeavour version without Hofmann potential
Thank you for this interesting discussion. Does this also apply to the ICSD database? I have made tables from data taken from ICSD - am I going to go to jail? I fear you will have to go but you can buy yourself out with a lifelong ICSD subscription! And remember, you have the right to remain silent. L. Keller
