[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:05:51 +0100 Ole Streicher wrote:

> Francesco Poli <invernomuto@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

> 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...

 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

Attachment: pgpDKodUd4Hbr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: