[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:00.00,0:00:23.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}36C3 preroll music{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:00:23.93,0:00:30.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,purine:bitter: Thanks a lot to WikiPakaWG\Nfor hosting this and for keeping us all
Dialogue: 0,0:00:30.21,0:00:39.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,awake. So probably it's not wrong to say\NGood Morning everyone. Okay, what I would
Dialogue: 0,0:00:39.28,0:00:44.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like to do so this all of this has been\Nannounced as a discussion so there's
Dialogue: 0,0:00:44.53,0:00:51.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,probably no point in me talking to you for\Nsomething like 55 minutes straight. So I
Dialogue: 0,0:00:51.86,0:00:58.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would just like to give you a couple of\Nslides on what we could discuss and then
Dialogue: 0,0:00:58.89,0:01:08.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,see where we want to go with this one,\Nokay? So to start off with: Who of you
Dialogue: 0,0:01:08.22,0:01:17.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,considers him- or herself to be a\Nscientist? Okay, who has the pleasure to
Dialogue: 0,0:01:17.31,0:01:25.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,work within the European scientific\Nsystem? Okay, and within the German one?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:25.44,0:01:34.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Okay, so negative control: Who knows what\Nthe capital of North Dakota is? Okay, so
Dialogue: 0,0:01:34.39,0:01:42.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there is no rigor mortis in your arms.\NOkay, so topic today is Free Software for
Dialogue: 0,0:01:42.03,0:01:47.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Open Science and as I have some\Nassociation with the Free Software
Dialogue: 0,0:01:47.34,0:01:54.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Foundation Europe, well we should probably\Nstart with the definitions: So number one,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:54.52,0:02:00.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what do we consider to be Free Software in\Nthis one: It's pretty much every software
Dialogue: 0,0:02:00.48,0:02:07.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that would be released under an either\NFSF- or OSI-compliant license. So this is
Dialogue: 0,0:02:07.05,0:02:17.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what most people know also as Open Source\Nand main point here is, as the FSF and OSI
Dialogue: 0,0:02:17.15,0:02:20.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,definitions pretty much standardized the\Nsame things that they just have different
Dialogue: 0,0:02:20.90,0:02:32.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ways to say it, it should be made sure\Nthat it guarantees the Four Freedoms to
Dialogue: 0,0:02:32.39,0:02:38.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the user, so to use, to study, to improve\Nand to share the piece of software and of
Dialogue: 0,0:02:38.94,0:02:46.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,course this does require the existence and\Nopenness of a source code and the ability
Dialogue: 0,0:02:46.11,0:02:54.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to actually create derivatives. Okay so\Nand I think for everyone who has been
Dialogue: 0,0:02:54.99,0:03:00.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,working in science it's pretty clear that\Nthose four core freedoms are very well
Dialogue: 0,0:03:00.28,0:03:04.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,aligned with what we're trying to do in\Nscience okay we're trying to build up on
Dialogue: 0,0:03:04.70,0:03:12.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the work of others and to get humanity\Nalong and increase our overall knowledge.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:12.19,0:03:19.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So for that reason what we're doing there\Nis exactly that we're exercising those
Dialogue: 0,0:03:19.63,0:03:25.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,four freedoms just not necessarily that\Nwe're doing it in a digital or code-based
Dialogue: 0,0:03:25.31,0:03:31.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,manner. Okay so that's the first thing.\NThen what actually is Open Science? So
Dialogue: 0,0:03:31.28,0:03:37.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,first of all, Open Science is a Class A\Nbuzzword. Nevertheless, the European
Dialogue: 0,0:03:37.16,0:03:45.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Commission took the liberty to get a\Ncommittee in there, in that case the OSPP,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:45.30,0:03:53.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the Open Science Policy Platform, and\Nthose people developed a lot of bits or
Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.12,0:04:01.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,paper, whatever. And what they defined is\Neight key areas, they are called sometimes
Dialogue: 0,0:04:01.47,0:04:08.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,called "ambitions", sometimes they're\Ncalled "priorities", which is the key
Dialogue: 0,0:04:08.03,0:04:14.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,things that need to be addressed in the\Nmidterm to move European science to what
Dialogue: 0,0:04:14.26,0:04:20.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they consider to be Open Science. And this\Nis not only, and that's very important,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:20.81,0:04:25.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about the classical things that you might\Nknow like Open Access and Open Data. Open
Dialogue: 0,0:04:25.57,0:04:30.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Access and Open Data are basically\Nincorporated in here, so scholarly
Dialogue: 0,0:04:30.37,0:04:35.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,communication, it says "Future of\NScholarly Communication", which can be
Dialogue: 0,0:04:35.04,0:04:43.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,everything from Open Access to just going\Ndigital. However, we should all be aware
Dialogue: 0,0:04:43.16,0:04:50.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that European Commission now has endorsed\NPlan S, which is a rather far-reaching
Dialogue: 0,0:04:50.92,0:04:56.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,push towards more or rather radical\Nprogram in terms of publishing
Dialogue: 0,0:04:56.29,0:05:02.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,requirements, so we can consider that this\Npart for scholarly communication is really
Dialogue: 0,0:05:02.02,0:05:08.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,meant to be Open Access. And then the\Nother things, so Open Data is what is
Dialogue: 0,0:05:08.97,0:05:15.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,called here to be FAIR Data, because the\NCommission typically tries to avoid the
Dialogue: 0,0:05:15.58,0:05:21.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,term "Open", because "Open" is of course\Nis not FAIR and FAIR unfortunately is not
Dialogue: 0,0:05:21.43,0:05:25.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Open". But this is where we lead our\Ndiscussions. So this means that we only
Dialogue: 0,0:05:25.77,0:05:31.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have two of the classical Open Science\Npoints that are in here. Everything else
Dialogue: 0,0:05:31.54,0:05:37.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are things like "Incentives", so this is\Nhow can we generate better citation or how
Dialogue: 0,0:05:37.74,0:05:42.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can we make sure that the people who do\Nthe work get the credit, so we might need
Dialogue: 0,0:05:42.76,0:05:56.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,some reform in how we do citations. Then\N"Indicators" is -- was that me or was that
Dialogue: 0,0:05:56.60,0:06:04.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,okay -- so "Indicators" is kind of a way\Nto try to overcome the simple citation
Dialogue: 0,0:06:04.68,0:06:12.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,indices and of course especially the\Nimpact factor. "EOSC" for those of you
Dialogue: 0,0:06:12.84,0:06:16.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have not heard that term that's a very\Nlarge project, that's the European Open
Dialogue: 0,0:06:16.41,0:06:22.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Science Cloud. It's still rather ill-\Ndefined what it should be, it's getting
Dialogue: 0,0:06:22.15,0:06:27.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,better along the way but the term has been\Nout there for three years. In the end what
Dialogue: 0,0:06:27.25,0:06:32.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this is about is to really create a large\Nfederated European infrastructure for
Dialogue: 0,0:06:32.99,0:06:41.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,scientific data. The main funding for that\None will come from the National States and
Dialogue: 0,0:06:41.30,0:06:48.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so for example the German implementation\Nis called NFDI, National Research Data
Dialogue: 0,0:06:48.14,0:06:53.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Infrastructure, and will be heavily funded\Nby nearly 1 billion Euros over the next 10
Dialogue: 0,0:06:53.04,0:07:02.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,years so this is the scale that we are\Ntalking about. "Integrity" means how to
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.82,0:07:10.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,assure integrity, "Skills" is how to train\Nthe next generation of scientists and CS
Dialogue: 0,0:07:10.15,0:07:15.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is the abbreviation for "Citizen Science".\NSo with all of this you see that what Open
Dialogue: 0,0:07:15.93,0:07:19.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Science is not just trying to do tick\Nmarks, what they're really trying to push
Dialogue: 0,0:07:19.55,0:07:28.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for is a rather fundamental change in the\Nway how we do our work to what's really
Dialogue: 0,0:07:28.57,0:07:36.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,becoming a more egalitarian system and a\Nmore open and participatory system. Okay,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:36.02,0:07:43.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so now the question is, what is the role\Nthat free software can play in this. And
Dialogue: 0,0:07:43.14,0:07:46.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so one of the things that we need to\Ndefine here are we talking about Free
Dialogue: 0,0:07:46.87,0:07:54.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Software for Open Science, which is the\Nthing that this talk was announced for.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:54.30,0:07:57.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But of course we could also, if that's the\Ngeneral interest, to talk about Free
Dialogue: 0,0:07:57.51,0:08:03.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Software in Open Science or in science in\Ngeneral. So distinction would be that the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:03.58,0:08:08.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"for Open Science" is mainly, here we're\Ntalking about software as a research
Dialogue: 0,0:08:08.89,0:08:13.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,product, so this is mainly the main focus\Nsoftware that is created by the scientists
Dialogue: 0,0:08:13.89,0:08:22.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,themselves and here we then have of course\Nissues like how to sustain it how to
Dialogue: 0,0:08:22.26,0:08:30.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ensure quality and how to choose proper\Nlicensing models for it. While the "in
Dialogue: 0,0:08:30.20,0:08:34.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,science" is more generally talking about\Ngeneric software tools so this is
Dialogue: 0,0:08:34.98,0:08:41.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,operating system, office suites and so on\Nthat are just used by scientists in more
Dialogue: 0,0:08:41.28,0:08:50.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,general. In both cases the main point of\Ncourse is how Free Software can contribute
Dialogue: 0,0:08:50.74,0:08:57.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the scientific endeavor is of course by\Npromoting the reproducibility because
Dialogue: 0,0:08:57.28,0:09:04.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,everyone can use these tools there is no\Nthere is no pay wall in that case. So you
Dialogue: 0,0:09:04.54,0:09:11.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,don't need to purchase as given Microsoft\NOffice version to recreate an Excel table
Dialogue: 0,0:09:11.66,0:09:18.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or something like this and of course also\Nthe attempt to reduce black boxing. The
Dialogue: 0,0:09:18.73,0:09:29.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,other thing that is more specific for Free\NSoftware for Open Science is the general
Dialogue: 0,0:09:29.33,0:09:35.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thing that we already said: Okay, so some\Nof the ideas of Free Software align well
Dialogue: 0,0:09:35.63,0:09:41.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with what we're trying to do in science.\NBut more importantly the question right
Dialogue: 0,0:09:41.07,0:09:47.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,now is: Does it fit the policies under\Nwhich we are operating? And so of course
Dialogue: 0,0:09:47.44,0:09:55.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the main policy that most people know is\NFAIR. So FAIR stands for Findable,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:55.78,0:10:02.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Accessible Interoperable and Reusable and\Nit's a kind of a paradigm that was
Dialogue: 0,0:10:02.26,0:10:11.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,defined, so published 2016, was in the\Nmaking for a couple of years before that
Dialogue: 0,0:10:11.71,0:10:18.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and this is something that was a primarily\Ngeared towards data. The nice thing about
Dialogue: 0,0:10:18.46,0:10:25.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,FAIR is that the 2016 paper also\Noperationalizes this so they give criteria
Dialogue: 0,0:10:25.27,0:10:32.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on what you need to do or what you need to\Nensure that for example a data set is
Dialogue: 0,0:10:32.75,0:10:38.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,findable, what it means how it needs to be\Naccessible and so on so forth. And of
Dialogue: 0,0:10:38.59,0:10:44.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,course reuse also says something about,\Nwell you need to put a license on it, but
Dialogue: 0,0:10:44.85,0:10:53.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,otherwise it's not that specific. Okay,\Nnow importantly for this one stuff, that
Dialogue: 0,0:10:53.11,0:10:59.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is FAIR does not necessarily align with\NFree Software because Free Software means
Dialogue: 0,0:10:59.40,0:11:04.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that there are no restrict- that there are\Nbasically no restrictions in use, while
Dialogue: 0,0:11:04.24,0:11:16.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the reusability for FAIR simply says:\NPeople somehow need to be able to reuse
Dialogue: 0,0:11:16.75,0:11:23.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it, so there needs to be a clear pathway.\NThat can still be a proprietary license,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:23.38,0:11:29.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,okay and that license might still not\Nallow you to do everything with it, there
Dialogue: 0,0:11:29.95,0:11:36.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just needs to be this ability. So that's\None of the main things where FAIR does not
Dialogue: 0,0:11:36.37,0:11:42.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fit the usual - the Free Software\Ndefinitions. On the other hand of course,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:42.29,0:11:54.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Free Software doesn't say anything about\N-- Oh No! I killed the alpaca! --
Dialogue: 0,0:11:54.15,0:12:00.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Applause{\i0}\NOkay, I'm probably gonna be kicked off the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:00.02,0:12:14.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stage any minute, okay sorry. Alright, so\Non the other hand, I can write beautiful
Dialogue: 0,0:12:14.17,0:12:18.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,code and put it under an Open Source\Nlicense and put it on a USB stick and bury
Dialogue: 0,0:12:18.07,0:12:24.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it somewhere in my garden. Okay, so then\Nit's neither findable nor accessible and
Dialogue: 0,0:12:24.82,0:12:30.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this is of course also something where the\Nclassical definitions for Free Software
Dialogue: 0,0:12:30.88,0:12:34.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,don't necessarily match these two\Ncriteria, which nevertheless also for
Dialogue: 0,0:12:34.76,0:12:42.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,software do make sense. Finally one last\Nthing is that FAIR defines a product, so
Dialogue: 0,0:12:42.92,0:12:46.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it says: Okay, so the outcome of your\Nresearch needs to comply with different
Dialogue: 0,0:12:46.25,0:12:51.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,criteria and that's of course a relatively\Neasy thing to test. What it does not do
Dialogue: 0,0:12:51.27,0:12:55.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and maybe from a software development\Nperspective this is something that is more
Dialogue: 0,0:12:55.95,0:13:00.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,important, it doesn't define a process how\Nwe do things. And this is one of the
Dialogue: 0,0:13:00.57,0:13:09.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,things that also one of the German\Ncommittees so the RfII has recently
Dialogue: 0,0:13:09.48,0:13:15.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,started to criticize for FAIR that we say\Nokay, FAIR data just says this one, but
Dialogue: 0,0:13:15.33,0:13:19.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you can have completely rubbish data and\Nit can still be FAIR. But what we want to
Dialogue: 0,0:13:19.62,0:13:27.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have is high quality FAIR data. So FAIR\Nclearly is some kind of minimal consensus
Dialogue: 0,0:13:27.71,0:13:35.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's condicio sine qua non, but we\Nprobably need to extend it at this point
Dialogue: 0,0:13:35.16,0:13:40.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and of course was this one we can also\Ndiscuss on how we want to continue, how we
Dialogue: 0,0:13:40.62,0:13:48.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,want to get this into or align this with\NFree Software. Okay, so that's more or
Dialogue: 0,0:13:48.70,0:13:54.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,less the brief introduction, now there are\Na couple of things that we can discuss
Dialogue: 0,0:13:54.87,0:14:02.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,further, depending on your interest. And\Nthat would be basically what about the
Dialogue: 0,0:14:02.06,0:14:06.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,current European policies, before we\Nreview what about the current German
Dialogue: 0,0:14:06.20,0:14:15.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,policies, what about generic Free Software\Ntools. But maybe that's the point where
Dialogue: 0,0:14:15.99,0:14:32.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you could say something to\Nget us going a bit.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:32.24,0:14:35.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Question: I think it's working -- You\Nmentioned that the current software
Dialogue: 0,0:14:35.30,0:14:39.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,standards might not be in line with the\Npolicies, what were you exactly referring
Dialogue: 0,0:14:39.72,0:14:41.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to?\NAnswer: Can you repeat this?
Dialogue: 0,0:14:41.72,0:14:45.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Q: You mentioned before that the current\Nsoftware procedures or standards might not
Dialogue: 0,0:14:45.85,0:14:51.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be in line with the policies in the\NEuropean Union. What exactly did you mean
Dialogue: 0,0:14:51.06,0:15:03.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by that?\NA: So the thing is that the so I can
Dialogue: 0,0:15:03.86,0:15:11.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,comply with OSI regulations for Open\NSource Software, but none of our funding
Dialogue: 0,0:15:11.38,0:15:17.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,bodies says you need to be OSI compliant.\NWhat they say typically is you should do
Dialogue: 0,0:15:17.81,0:15:23.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stuff that is FAIR but right now one of\Nthe issues, this is what basically this
Dialogue: 0,0:15:23.95,0:15:32.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,slide then says, is the question whether\Nany of the policy makers really define
Dialogue: 0,0:15:32.09,0:15:37.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,code as a primary research object. And\Nthat's right now not the case so therefore
Dialogue: 0,0:15:37.68,0:15:44.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,everyone assumes that code behaves like\Ndata and to equal code with data is
Dialogue: 0,0:15:44.38,0:15:50.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,something where some people get cold\Nshivers, others don't because it is an
Dialogue: 0,0:15:50.48,0:15:54.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,operation that you can do, it's a lossy\Noperation, but it might be it might help
Dialogue: 0,0:15:54.58,0:16:02.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,us in some ways. And the main point here\Nis that code has some idiosyncrasies that
Dialogue: 0,0:16:02.76,0:16:06.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,make it distinct from data and this is\Nwhere our policies break. On the other
Dialogue: 0,0:16:06.54,0:16:11.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,hand, some of the policies that we came up\N-- not for research but in general, so
Dialogue: 0,0:16:11.77,0:16:17.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from the from the Free Software\Nperspective -- that we made up there,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:17.60,0:16:23.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,didn't make it into the policy documents\Nand so therefore are not incorporated
Dialogue: 0,0:16:23.01,0:16:30.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there. Okay, so FAIR criteria and the\Nother ones don't completely overlap. So
Dialogue: 0,0:16:30.20,0:16:33.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,most people might write code but it still\Nwon't align with a FAIR criterion if you
Dialogue: 0,0:16:33.84,0:16:47.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would take it one to one.\NQ: So a question about the topic item to
Dialogue: 0,0:16:47.83,0:16:53.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,start the licensing. So when we say we\Nhave a commercial company who like
Dialogue: 0,0:16:53.38,0:16:58.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Microsoft who develops an office package\Nand when you say Free Software for Open
Dialogue: 0,0:16:58.99,0:17:04.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Science it would be better to like invest\Nthe money not into license cost where
Dialogue: 0,0:17:04.75,0:17:10.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reoccurring but better for like and like a\Nbigger thing like country to invest more
Dialogue: 0,0:17:10.00,0:17:18.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in like open code or like open programs.\NIs this kind of like tackled by what you
Dialogue: 0,0:17:18.26,0:17:24.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mean with the FAIR or the Open Source?\NA: This is this is one of the things that
Dialogue: 0,0:17:24.70,0:17:32.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not necessary is not necessarily so you\Ncould construct it in a way that it
Dialogue: 0,0:17:32.25,0:17:37.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,actually overlaps with FAIR. Because\Nyou're talking about reproducibility, oh
Dialogue: 0,0:17:37.44,0:17:41.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,well so okay, FAIR doesn't say\Nreproducibility but it says accessibility
Dialogue: 0,0:17:41.78,0:17:46.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and if you're using formats that are\Nproprietary you could say okay well this
Dialogue: 0,0:17:46.04,0:17:51.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is not accessible to everyone because you\Nneed to pay for it. Now the thing is that
Dialogue: 0,0:17:51.02,0:17:55.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there are a lot of things where you have\Nto pay for so this was one of the things
Dialogue: 0,0:17:55.12,0:18:02.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that was never on the agenda to try to be\Neradicated. This is, so the generic
Dialogue: 0,0:18:02.80,0:18:08.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,software part is just something that I\Nthat came into this whole process later,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:08.88,0:18:16.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,initially it was really geared towards\Nthe: How can scientists make sure that or
Dialogue: 0,0:18:16.78,0:18:21.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how does the software produced by\Nscientists is both Free Software and
Dialogue: 0,0:18:21.28,0:18:27.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,contributes to Open Science and what do we\Nneed to do to create potentially
Dialogue: 0,0:18:27.24,0:18:32.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,additional funding opportunities for,\Nbecause this is where typically breaks, to
Dialogue: 0,0:18:32.87,0:18:40.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say well I can write better code if I have\Nmore man or woman power, if I have people
Dialogue: 0,0:18:40.45,0:18:46.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who curate, if I have people who do who do\Nissue fixing and so on and so forth. Which
Dialogue: 0,0:18:46.04,0:18:52.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right now is not considered part of the\Nresearch process but in reality, so by the
Dialogue: 0,0:18:52.68,0:18:58.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,policy makers, but in reality it already\Nhas become that. Now if you're saying you
Dialogue: 0,0:18:58.14,0:19:03.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are using generic software or generic\Noffice suits for that one, then yes, we
Dialogue: 0,0:19:03.53,0:19:08.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are investing a lot on in these things in\Nthe tertiary education and in the research
Dialogue: 0,0:19:08.75,0:19:15.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sector and, personal opinion, yes we\Nshould spend this on things that doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:19:15.66,0:19:21.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,nudge people towards proprietary\Nsolutions. But the question there but
Dialogue: 0,0:19:21.75,0:19:29.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's something that is because it it has\Na stronger education component also for
Dialogue: 0,0:19:29.00,0:19:35.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,student education, so I wanted to bring it\Nup here because I thought okay maybe it's
Dialogue: 0,0:19:35.11,0:19:40.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,something that more people here are\Ninterested in. But I agree that it doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:19:40.89,0:19:48.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,overlap completely, doesn't strongly\Noverlap with the with the Open Science
Dialogue: 0,0:19:48.61,0:19:59.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,part.\NQ: Right, okay. I've heard some people
Dialogue: 0,0:19:59.73,0:20:05.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,work on the FAIR principles specific for\Nsoftware. You've heard about it and you
Dialogue: 0,0:20:05.36,0:20:13.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know what kind of the differences are?\NA: Yes, so thanks for this input. So let
Dialogue: 0,0:20:13.66,0:20:24.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,me check. Okay I've missed that one. So\Nyeah, there's a recent paper that just
Dialogue: 0,0:20:24.46,0:20:32.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,came out a couple of weeks ago by Anna-\NLena Lamprecht, she's from the Netherlands
Dialogue: 0,0:20:32.68,0:20:41.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,eScience Center. So what they try to do\Nis, they to use the catalog or this the
Dialogue: 0,0:20:41.94,0:20:47.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,original FAIR criteria and check for each\Nof those ones does it apply to software,
Dialogue: 0,0:20:47.58,0:20:59.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,yes or no? And then change them, amend\Nthem in a way to make sure that it then,
Dialogue: 0,0:20:59.46,0:21:04.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,well, better fits into the process. So\Nthey for example say well so there needs
Dialogue: 0,0:21:04.34,0:21:09.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to be some kind of documented quality\Ncontrol, they're more talking of course
Dialogue: 0,0:21:09.90,0:21:13.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about software repositories, they then\Ninclude versioning, which is one of the
Dialogue: 0,0:21:13.85,0:21:18.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,huge things that sets code apart from\Ndata, which is once it's released
Dialogue: 0,0:21:18.75,0:21:25.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,typically a rather static object. So\Nthey're trying to get somewhere and I
Dialogue: 0,0:21:25.45,0:21:34.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,think it's, it's a good document to start\Nwith but in my personal opinion, I think
Dialogue: 0,0:21:34.67,0:21:38.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it wasn't bold enough. You might have\Nbeen, I mean we had this discussion at the
Dialogue: 0,0:21:38.87,0:21:47.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,RSE19 conference also, where Anna-Lena\Nalso was there, and it tries to stick very
Dialogue: 0,0:21:47.94,0:21:52.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,closely to FAIR, because they assume that\Nthis is what people know. Which I think is
Dialogue: 0,0:21:52.89,0:21:57.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,good. On the other hand there's a very\Nclear recommendation form most bodies that
Dialogue: 0,0:21:57.23,0:22:01.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,FAIR should not be extended, so we don't\Nneed, as they say, we don't need
Dialogue: 0,0:22:01.82,0:22:06.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"additional letters" for FAIR and they\Nreally want to have those basically as one
Dialogue: 0,0:22:06.80,0:22:14.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,concept to stick on to stick with data. So\Ntherefore I think it would have been
Dialogue: 0,0:22:14.76,0:22:22.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,necessary have a bolder step to to try to\Nwork in all the established development
Dialogue: 0,0:22:22.58,0:22:28.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,policies that we already have than just to\Nstick as close as possible to FAIR and
Dialogue: 0,0:22:28.70,0:22:33.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then just change the nitty-gritty details,\Nwhich is what they did. But nevertheless I
Dialogue: 0,0:22:33.66,0:22:37.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,think it's it's something that is clearly\Nworth reading.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:37.68,0:22:42.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Q: Thanks a lot for your talk this\Nresonated a lot with me and as someone
Dialogue: 0,0:22:42.69,0:22:49.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,working in research infrastructure I think\Nit's super important that we focus on
Dialogue: 0,0:22:49.52,0:22:55.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,recognizing research infrastructure so all\Nkinds of services like sustainable data
Dialogue: 0,0:22:55.76,0:23:01.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,storage for researchers, tools that help\Nmake data discoverable and things like
Dialogue: 0,0:23:01.75,0:23:04.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that. That this should be considered a\Npublic good right?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:04.71,0:23:08.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A: Yes\NQ: And so next to what you mentioned and
Dialogue: 0,0:23:08.83,0:23:14.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rightly so with Microsoft, the other risk\Nthat I currently see, is that legacy
Dialogue: 0,0:23:14.04,0:23:20.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,publishers like Elsevier, like Springer-\NNature and so on, try to capture the whole
Dialogue: 0,0:23:20.85,0:23:30.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,market so this all as trying to deliver on\Nall the needs that researchers have in the
Dialogue: 0,0:23:30.01,0:23:38.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,digital area with huge platforms. And this\Nis like a battle that we almost have lost
Dialogue: 0,0:23:38.46,0:23:45.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,already, as it seems. So there are many\Ninteresting very good free and open source
Dialogue: 0,0:23:45.38,0:23:50.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,alternatives to what they deliver but it's\Nreally not recognized very well why this
Dialogue: 0,0:23:50.54,0:23:56.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is so important. This is my impression.\NA: Yeah I mean I would I would second
Dialogue: 0,0:23:56.97,0:24:02.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that. So, I think and this is it's\Ninteresting to see the large publishing
Dialogue: 0,0:24:02.55,0:24:07.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,companies now really moving away from\Ntheir traditional business because
Dialogue: 0,0:24:07.85,0:24:11.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,apparently they have recognized that they\Nmight be on a losing path there. But
Dialogue: 0,0:24:11.94,0:24:19.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,really to offer a wholesale data\Nmanagement solutions to institutes. I mean
Dialogue: 0,0:24:19.18,0:24:22.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there is, this is probably just an\Nanecdote, but so apparently Elsevier
Dialogue: 0,0:24:22.79,0:24:29.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,offered to I think the Netherlands or the\NDutch government to say that they said:
Dialogue: 0,0:24:29.00,0:24:35.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Okay, we do all of your data management or\Nbasically you get everything for free, but
Dialogue: 0,0:24:35.33,0:24:41.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,each and every institution has to deliver\Nbut we become your central data deposition
Dialogue: 0,0:24:41.37,0:24:49.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,platform. Which well, unfortunately it\Nmight appeal to some politicians, I think
Dialogue: 0,0:24:49.94,0:24:55.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it doesn't appeal to anyone else in this\Nroom given that probably Elsevier is a
Dialogue: 0,0:24:55.97,0:25:02.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,company that is even more hated than\NMicrosoft for reasons completely unknown I
Dialogue: 0,0:25:02.85,0:25:08.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mean they just make a revenue of thirty-\Nfive percent every year so maybe we should
Dialogue: 0,0:25:08.16,0:25:17.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just buy stock options.\NQ: Oh thank you for your talk. What I not
Dialogue: 0,0:25:17.56,0:25:23.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,completely understand is why we use the\NFAIR concept for as a point of reference
Dialogue: 0,0:25:23.56,0:25:29.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at all. Because I feel like this the\Nconcept of Open Access in science is far
Dialogue: 0,0:25:29.38,0:25:34.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more applicable to code. So in the end\Ncode is text and it's part of the
Dialogue: 0,0:25:34.15,0:25:38.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,scientific publication system, so we have\Nreferences from and to code and such
Dialogue: 0,0:25:38.72,0:25:47.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,things. And the the Open Access yeah yeah\Nthe the concept of Open Access has the
Dialogue: 0,0:25:47.22,0:25:52.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,same ancestors like the scientific\Npublication system with the Mertonian
Dialogue: 0,0:25:52.30,0:25:59.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,norms of science and such, so why don't\Ntreat code like scientific publications.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:59.58,0:26:05.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A: Ok, I'm honestly I'm relatively open to\Nthis idea because this is I mean is the
Dialogue: 0,0:26:05.34,0:26:11.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reason why we're having this discussion.\NThe mainly what I'm presenting to you now
Dialogue: 0,0:26:11.14,0:26:16.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is mainly developed out of the existing EU\Npolicies and the EU talks about FAIR a
Dialogue: 0,0:26:16.48,0:26:20.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lot. Because for them it's an\Noperationalized thing, it's something that
Dialogue: 0,0:26:20.53,0:26:23.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they would like to test in the end, they\Nit's something that they would like to
Dialogue: 0,0:26:23.23,0:26:29.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,score and so on so forth so that paper\Npushers have something to do with. But I
Dialogue: 0,0:26:29.65,0:26:36.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,agree that we can simply say well in the\Nend the openness is more important and
Dialogue: 0,0:26:36.59,0:26:46.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,FAIR, as we already said, isn't open, so\Ntherefore the Open Access would maybe the
Dialogue: 0,0:26:46.53,0:26:53.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,better point to to hook this up so yeah I\Nagree on that.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:53.18,0:26:57.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}postroll music{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:26:57.20,0:27:20.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de\Nin the year 2020. Join, and help us!