WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:23.929
<i>36C3 preroll music</i>

00:00:23.929 --> 00:00:30.209
purine:bitter: Thanks a lot to WikiPakaWG
for hosting this and for keeping us all

00:00:30.209 --> 00:00:39.280
awake. So probably it's not wrong to say
Good Morning everyone. Okay, what I would

00:00:39.280 --> 00:00:44.530
like to do so this all of this has been
announced as a discussion so there's

00:00:44.530 --> 00:00:51.860
probably no point in me talking to you for
something like 55 minutes straight. So I

00:00:51.860 --> 00:00:58.890
would just like to give you a couple of
slides on what we could discuss and then

00:00:58.890 --> 00:01:08.220
see where we want to go with this one,
okay? So to start off with: Who of you

00:01:08.220 --> 00:01:17.310
considers him- or herself to be a
scientist? Okay, who has the pleasure to

00:01:17.310 --> 00:01:25.440
work within the European scientific
system? Okay, and within the German one?

00:01:25.440 --> 00:01:34.390
Okay, so negative control: Who knows what
the capital of North Dakota is? Okay, so

00:01:34.390 --> 00:01:42.030
there is no rigor mortis in your arms.
Okay, so topic today is Free Software for

00:01:42.030 --> 00:01:47.340
Open Science and as I have some
association with the Free Software

00:01:47.340 --> 00:01:54.520
Foundation Europe, well we should probably
start with the definitions: So number one,

00:01:54.520 --> 00:02:00.479
what do we consider to be Free Software in
this one: It's pretty much every software

00:02:00.479 --> 00:02:07.049
that would be released under an either
FSF- or OSI-compliant license. So this is

00:02:07.049 --> 00:02:17.150
what most people know also as Open Source
and main point here is, as the FSF and OSI

00:02:17.150 --> 00:02:20.900
definitions pretty much standardized the
same things that they just have different

00:02:20.900 --> 00:02:32.389
ways to say it, it should be made sure
that it guarantees the Four Freedoms to

00:02:32.389 --> 00:02:38.939
the user, so to use, to study, to improve
and to share the piece of software and of

00:02:38.939 --> 00:02:46.109
course this does require the existence and
openness of a source code and the ability

00:02:46.109 --> 00:02:54.989
to actually create derivatives. Okay so
and I think for everyone who has been

00:02:54.989 --> 00:03:00.279
working in science it's pretty clear that
those four core freedoms are very well

00:03:00.279 --> 00:03:04.700
aligned with what we're trying to do in
science okay we're trying to build up on

00:03:04.700 --> 00:03:12.189
the work of others and to get humanity
along and increase our overall knowledge.

00:03:12.189 --> 00:03:19.630
So for that reason what we're doing there
is exactly that we're exercising those

00:03:19.630 --> 00:03:25.309
four freedoms just not necessarily that
we're doing it in a digital or code-based

00:03:25.309 --> 00:03:31.279
manner. Okay so that's the first thing.
Then what actually is Open Science? So

00:03:31.279 --> 00:03:37.159
first of all, Open Science is a Class A
buzzword. Nevertheless, the European

00:03:37.159 --> 00:03:45.299
Commission took the liberty to get a
committee in there, in that case the OSPP,

00:03:45.299 --> 00:03:53.120
the Open Science Policy Platform, and
those people developed a lot of bits or

00:03:53.120 --> 00:04:01.469
paper, whatever. And what they defined is
eight key areas, they are called sometimes

00:04:01.469 --> 00:04:08.030
called "ambitions", sometimes they're
called "priorities", which is the key

00:04:08.030 --> 00:04:14.260
things that need to be addressed in the
midterm to move European science to what

00:04:14.260 --> 00:04:20.810
they consider to be Open Science. And this
is not only, and that's very important,

00:04:20.810 --> 00:04:25.570
about the classical things that you might
know like Open Access and Open Data. Open

00:04:25.570 --> 00:04:30.370
Access and Open Data are basically
incorporated in here, so scholarly

00:04:30.370 --> 00:04:35.040
communication, it says "Future of
Scholarly Communication", which can be

00:04:35.040 --> 00:04:43.160
everything from Open Access to just going
digital. However, we should all be aware

00:04:43.160 --> 00:04:50.920
that European Commission now has endorsed
Plan S, which is a rather far-reaching

00:04:50.920 --> 00:04:56.290
push towards more or rather radical
program in terms of publishing

00:04:56.290 --> 00:05:02.020
requirements, so we can consider that this
part for scholarly communication is really

00:05:02.020 --> 00:05:08.970
meant to be Open Access. And then the
other things, so Open Data is what is

00:05:08.970 --> 00:05:15.580
called here to be FAIR Data, because the
Commission typically tries to avoid the

00:05:15.580 --> 00:05:21.430
term "Open", because "Open" is of course
is not FAIR and FAIR unfortunately is not

00:05:21.430 --> 00:05:25.770
"Open". But this is where we lead our
discussions. So this means that we only

00:05:25.770 --> 00:05:31.540
have two of the classical Open Science
points that are in here. Everything else

00:05:31.540 --> 00:05:37.741
are things like "Incentives", so this is
how can we generate better citation or how

00:05:37.741 --> 00:05:42.760
can we make sure that the people who do
the work get the credit, so we might need

00:05:42.760 --> 00:05:56.600
some reform in how we do citations. Then
"Indicators" is -- was that me or was that

00:05:56.600 --> 00:06:04.680
okay -- so "Indicators" is kind of a way
to try to overcome the simple citation

00:06:04.680 --> 00:06:12.840
indices and of course especially the
impact factor. "EOSC" for those of you

00:06:12.840 --> 00:06:16.410
have not heard that term that's a very
large project, that's the European Open

00:06:16.410 --> 00:06:22.150
Science Cloud. It's still rather ill-
defined what it should be, it's getting

00:06:22.150 --> 00:06:27.250
better along the way but the term has been
out there for three years. In the end what

00:06:27.250 --> 00:06:32.990
this is about is to really create a large
federated European infrastructure for

00:06:32.990 --> 00:06:41.300
scientific data. The main funding for that
one will come from the National States and

00:06:41.300 --> 00:06:48.141
so for example the German implementation
is called NFDI, National Research Data

00:06:48.141 --> 00:06:53.040
Infrastructure, and will be heavily funded
by nearly 1 billion Euros over the next 10

00:06:53.040 --> 00:07:02.820
years so this is the scale that we are
talking about. "Integrity" means how to

00:07:02.820 --> 00:07:10.150
assure integrity, "Skills" is how to train
the next generation of scientists and CS

00:07:10.150 --> 00:07:15.930
is the abbreviation for "Citizen Science".
So with all of this you see that what Open

00:07:15.930 --> 00:07:19.550
Science is not just trying to do tick
marks, what they're really trying to push

00:07:19.550 --> 00:07:28.570
for is a rather fundamental change in the
way how we do our work to what's really

00:07:28.570 --> 00:07:36.020
becoming a more egalitarian system and a
more open and participatory system. Okay,

00:07:36.020 --> 00:07:43.140
so now the question is, what is the role
that free software can play in this. And

00:07:43.140 --> 00:07:46.870
so one of the things that we need to
define here are we talking about Free

00:07:46.870 --> 00:07:54.300
Software for Open Science, which is the
thing that this talk was announced for.

00:07:54.300 --> 00:07:57.510
But of course we could also, if that's the
general interest, to talk about Free

00:07:57.510 --> 00:08:03.580
Software in Open Science or in science in
general. So distinction would be that the

00:08:03.580 --> 00:08:08.890
"for Open Science" is mainly, here we're
talking about software as a research

00:08:08.890 --> 00:08:13.890
product, so this is mainly the main focus
software that is created by the scientists

00:08:13.890 --> 00:08:22.260
themselves and here we then have of course
issues like how to sustain it how to

00:08:22.260 --> 00:08:30.200
ensure quality and how to choose proper
licensing models for it. While the "in

00:08:30.200 --> 00:08:34.979
science" is more generally talking about
generic software tools so this is

00:08:34.979 --> 00:08:41.280
operating system, office suites and so on
that are just used by scientists in more

00:08:41.280 --> 00:08:50.740
general. In both cases the main point of
course is how Free Software can contribute

00:08:50.740 --> 00:08:57.279
to the scientific endeavor is of course by
promoting the reproducibility because

00:08:57.279 --> 00:09:04.539
everyone can use these tools there is no
there is no pay wall in that case. So you

00:09:04.539 --> 00:09:11.660
don't need to purchase as given Microsoft
Office version to recreate an Excel table

00:09:11.660 --> 00:09:18.729
or something like this and of course also
the attempt to reduce black boxing. The

00:09:18.729 --> 00:09:29.329
other thing that is more specific for Free
Software for Open Science is the general

00:09:29.329 --> 00:09:35.630
thing that we already said: Okay, so some
of the ideas of Free Software align well

00:09:35.630 --> 00:09:41.069
with what we're trying to do in science.
But more importantly the question right

00:09:41.069 --> 00:09:47.439
now is: Does it fit the policies under
which we are operating? And so of course

00:09:47.439 --> 00:09:55.779
the main policy that most people know is
FAIR. So FAIR stands for Findable,

00:09:55.779 --> 00:10:02.260
Accessible Interoperable and Reusable and
it's a kind of a paradigm that was

00:10:02.260 --> 00:10:11.709
defined, so published 2016, was in the
making for a couple of years before that

00:10:11.709 --> 00:10:18.459
and this is something that was a primarily
geared towards data. The nice thing about

00:10:18.459 --> 00:10:25.269
FAIR is that the 2016 paper also
operationalizes this so they give criteria

00:10:25.269 --> 00:10:32.749
on what you need to do or what you need to
ensure that for example a data set is

00:10:32.749 --> 00:10:38.589
findable, what it means how it needs to be
accessible and so on so forth. And of

00:10:38.589 --> 00:10:44.850
course reuse also says something about,
well you need to put a license on it, but

00:10:44.850 --> 00:10:53.110
otherwise it's not that specific. Okay,
now importantly for this one stuff, that

00:10:53.110 --> 00:10:59.400
is FAIR does not necessarily align with
Free Software because Free Software means

00:10:59.400 --> 00:11:04.239
that there are no restrict- that there are
basically no restrictions in use, while

00:11:04.239 --> 00:11:16.749
the reusability for FAIR simply says:
People somehow need to be able to reuse

00:11:16.749 --> 00:11:23.379
it, so there needs to be a clear pathway.
That can still be a proprietary license,

00:11:23.379 --> 00:11:29.950
okay and that license might still not
allow you to do everything with it, there

00:11:29.950 --> 00:11:36.369
just needs to be this ability. So that's
one of the main things where FAIR does not

00:11:36.369 --> 00:11:42.290
fit the usual - the Free Software
definitions. On the other hand of course,

00:11:42.290 --> 00:11:54.149
Free Software doesn't say anything about
-- Oh No! I killed the alpaca! --

00:11:54.149 --> 00:12:00.019
<i>Applause</i>
Okay, I'm probably gonna be kicked off the

00:12:00.019 --> 00:12:14.170
stage any minute, okay sorry. Alright, so
on the other hand, I can write beautiful

00:12:14.170 --> 00:12:18.070
code and put it under an Open Source
license and put it on a USB stick and bury

00:12:18.070 --> 00:12:24.819
it somewhere in my garden. Okay, so then
it's neither findable nor accessible and

00:12:24.819 --> 00:12:30.879
this is of course also something where the
classical definitions for Free Software

00:12:30.879 --> 00:12:34.760
don't necessarily match these two
criteria, which nevertheless also for

00:12:34.760 --> 00:12:42.920
software do make sense. Finally one last
thing is that FAIR defines a product, so

00:12:42.920 --> 00:12:46.249
it says: Okay, so the outcome of your
research needs to comply with different

00:12:46.249 --> 00:12:51.269
criteria and that's of course a relatively
easy thing to test. What it does not do

00:12:51.269 --> 00:12:55.950
and maybe from a software development
perspective this is something that is more

00:12:55.950 --> 00:13:00.569
important, it doesn't define a process how
we do things. And this is one of the

00:13:00.569 --> 00:13:09.480
things that also one of the German
committees so the RfII has recently

00:13:09.480 --> 00:13:15.330
started to criticize for FAIR that we say
okay, FAIR data just says this one, but

00:13:15.330 --> 00:13:19.620
you can have completely rubbish data and
it can still be FAIR. But what we want to

00:13:19.620 --> 00:13:27.709
have is high quality FAIR data. So FAIR
clearly is some kind of minimal consensus

00:13:27.709 --> 00:13:35.160
it's condicio sine qua non, but we
probably need to extend it at this point

00:13:35.160 --> 00:13:40.620
and of course was this one we can also
discuss on how we want to continue, how we

00:13:40.620 --> 00:13:48.700
want to get this into or align this with
Free Software. Okay, so that's more or

00:13:48.700 --> 00:13:54.869
less the brief introduction, now there are
a couple of things that we can discuss

00:13:54.869 --> 00:14:02.059
further, depending on your interest. And
that would be basically what about the

00:14:02.059 --> 00:14:06.200
current European policies, before we
review what about the current German

00:14:06.200 --> 00:14:15.989
policies, what about generic Free Software
tools. But maybe that's the point where

00:14:15.989 --> 00:14:32.240
you could say something to
get us going a bit.

00:14:32.240 --> 00:14:35.300
Question: I think it's working -- You
mentioned that the current software

00:14:35.300 --> 00:14:39.720
standards might not be in line with the
policies, what were you exactly referring

00:14:39.720 --> 00:14:41.720
to?
Answer: Can you repeat this?

00:14:41.720 --> 00:14:45.850
Q: You mentioned before that the current
software procedures or standards might not

00:14:45.850 --> 00:14:51.059
be in line with the policies in the
European Union. What exactly did you mean

00:14:51.059 --> 00:15:03.860
by that?
A: So the thing is that the so I can

00:15:03.860 --> 00:15:11.379
comply with OSI regulations for Open
Source Software, but none of our funding

00:15:11.379 --> 00:15:17.809
bodies says you need to be OSI compliant.
What they say typically is you should do

00:15:17.809 --> 00:15:23.949
stuff that is FAIR but right now one of
the issues, this is what basically this

00:15:23.949 --> 00:15:32.089
slide then says, is the question whether
any of the policy makers really define

00:15:32.089 --> 00:15:37.680
code as a primary research object. And
that's right now not the case so therefore

00:15:37.680 --> 00:15:44.379
everyone assumes that code behaves like
data and to equal code with data is

00:15:44.379 --> 00:15:50.480
something where some people get cold
shivers, others don't because it is an

00:15:50.480 --> 00:15:54.579
operation that you can do, it's a lossy
operation, but it might be it might help

00:15:54.579 --> 00:16:02.759
us in some ways. And the main point here
is that code has some idiosyncrasies that

00:16:02.759 --> 00:16:06.539
make it distinct from data and this is
where our policies break. On the other

00:16:06.539 --> 00:16:11.769
hand, some of the policies that we came up
-- not for research but in general, so

00:16:11.769 --> 00:16:17.600
from the from the Free Software
perspective -- that we made up there,

00:16:17.600 --> 00:16:23.009
didn't make it into the policy documents
and so therefore are not incorporated

00:16:23.009 --> 00:16:30.199
there. Okay, so FAIR criteria and the
other ones don't completely overlap. So

00:16:30.199 --> 00:16:33.839
most people might write code but it still
won't align with a FAIR criterion if you

00:16:33.839 --> 00:16:47.830
would take it one to one.
Q: So a question about the topic item to

00:16:47.830 --> 00:16:53.379
start the licensing. So when we say we
have a commercial company who like

00:16:53.379 --> 00:16:58.989
Microsoft who develops an office package
and when you say Free Software for Open

00:16:58.989 --> 00:17:04.750
Science it would be better to like invest
the money not into license cost where

00:17:04.750 --> 00:17:10.000
reoccurring but better for like and like a
bigger thing like country to invest more

00:17:10.000 --> 00:17:18.260
in like open code or like open programs.
Is this kind of like tackled by what you

00:17:18.260 --> 00:17:24.700
mean with the FAIR or the Open Source?
A: This is this is one of the things that

00:17:24.700 --> 00:17:32.250
not necessary is not necessarily so you
could construct it in a way that it

00:17:32.250 --> 00:17:37.440
actually overlaps with FAIR. Because
you're talking about reproducibility, oh

00:17:37.440 --> 00:17:41.780
well so okay, FAIR doesn't say
reproducibility but it says accessibility

00:17:41.780 --> 00:17:46.040
and if you're using formats that are
proprietary you could say okay well this

00:17:46.040 --> 00:17:51.020
is not accessible to everyone because you
need to pay for it. Now the thing is that

00:17:51.020 --> 00:17:55.120
there are a lot of things where you have
to pay for so this was one of the things

00:17:55.120 --> 00:18:02.800
that was never on the agenda to try to be
eradicated. This is, so the generic

00:18:02.800 --> 00:18:08.880
software part is just something that I
that came into this whole process later,

00:18:08.880 --> 00:18:16.780
initially it was really geared towards
the: How can scientists make sure that or

00:18:16.780 --> 00:18:21.280
how does the software produced by
scientists is both Free Software and

00:18:21.280 --> 00:18:27.240
contributes to Open Science and what do we
need to do to create potentially

00:18:27.240 --> 00:18:32.870
additional funding opportunities for,
because this is where typically breaks, to

00:18:32.870 --> 00:18:40.450
say well I can write better code if I have
more man or woman power, if I have people

00:18:40.450 --> 00:18:46.040
who curate, if I have people who do who do
issue fixing and so on and so forth. Which

00:18:46.040 --> 00:18:52.680
right now is not considered part of the
research process but in reality, so by the

00:18:52.680 --> 00:18:58.140
policy makers, but in reality it already
has become that. Now if you're saying you

00:18:58.140 --> 00:19:03.530
are using generic software or generic
office suits for that one, then yes, we

00:19:03.530 --> 00:19:08.750
are investing a lot on in these things in
the tertiary education and in the research

00:19:08.750 --> 00:19:15.660
sector and, personal opinion, yes we
should spend this on things that doesn't

00:19:15.660 --> 00:19:21.750
nudge people towards proprietary
solutions. But the question there but

00:19:21.750 --> 00:19:29.000
that's something that is because it it has
a stronger education component also for

00:19:29.000 --> 00:19:35.110
student education, so I wanted to bring it
up here because I thought okay maybe it's

00:19:35.110 --> 00:19:40.890
something that more people here are
interested in. But I agree that it doesn't

00:19:40.890 --> 00:19:48.610
overlap completely, doesn't strongly
overlap with the with the Open Science

00:19:48.610 --> 00:19:59.730
part.
Q: Right, okay. I've heard some people

00:19:59.730 --> 00:20:05.360
work on the FAIR principles specific for
software. You've heard about it and you

00:20:05.360 --> 00:20:13.660
know what kind of the differences are?
A: Yes, so thanks for this input. So let

00:20:13.660 --> 00:20:24.460
me check. Okay I've missed that one. So
yeah, there's a recent paper that just

00:20:24.460 --> 00:20:32.680
came out a couple of weeks ago by Anna-
Lena Lamprecht, she's from the Netherlands

00:20:32.680 --> 00:20:41.940
eScience Center. So what they try to do
is, they to use the catalog or this the

00:20:41.940 --> 00:20:47.580
original FAIR criteria and check for each
of those ones does it apply to software,

00:20:47.580 --> 00:20:59.460
yes or no? And then change them, amend
them in a way to make sure that it then,

00:20:59.460 --> 00:21:04.340
well, better fits into the process. So
they for example say well so there needs

00:21:04.340 --> 00:21:09.900
to be some kind of documented quality
control, they're more talking of course

00:21:09.900 --> 00:21:13.850
about software repositories, they then
include versioning, which is one of the

00:21:13.850 --> 00:21:18.750
huge things that sets code apart from
data, which is once it's released

00:21:18.750 --> 00:21:25.450
typically a rather static object. So
they're trying to get somewhere and I

00:21:25.450 --> 00:21:34.670
think it's, it's a good document to start
with but in my personal opinion, I think

00:21:34.670 --> 00:21:38.870
it wasn't bold enough. You might have
been, I mean we had this discussion at the

00:21:38.870 --> 00:21:47.940
RSE19 conference also, where Anna-Lena
also was there, and it tries to stick very

00:21:47.940 --> 00:21:52.890
closely to FAIR, because they assume that
this is what people know. Which I think is

00:21:52.890 --> 00:21:57.230
good. On the other hand there's a very
clear recommendation form most bodies that

00:21:57.230 --> 00:22:01.820
FAIR should not be extended, so we don't
need, as they say, we don't need

00:22:01.820 --> 00:22:06.800
"additional letters" for FAIR and they
really want to have those basically as one

00:22:06.800 --> 00:22:14.760
concept to stick on to stick with data. So
therefore I think it would have been

00:22:14.760 --> 00:22:22.580
necessary have a bolder step to to try to
work in all the established development

00:22:22.580 --> 00:22:28.700
policies that we already have than just to
stick as close as possible to FAIR and

00:22:28.700 --> 00:22:33.660
then just change the nitty-gritty details,
which is what they did. But nevertheless I

00:22:33.660 --> 00:22:37.680
think it's it's something that is clearly
worth reading.

00:22:37.680 --> 00:22:42.690
Q: Thanks a lot for your talk this
resonated a lot with me and as someone

00:22:42.690 --> 00:22:49.520
working in research infrastructure I think
it's super important that we focus on

00:22:49.520 --> 00:22:55.760
recognizing research infrastructure so all
kinds of services like sustainable data

00:22:55.760 --> 00:23:01.750
storage for researchers, tools that help
make data discoverable and things like

00:23:01.750 --> 00:23:04.710
that. That this should be considered a
public good right?

00:23:04.710 --> 00:23:08.830
A: Yes
Q: And so next to what you mentioned and

00:23:08.830 --> 00:23:14.040
rightly so with Microsoft, the other risk
that I currently see, is that legacy

00:23:14.040 --> 00:23:20.850
publishers like Elsevier, like Springer-
Nature and so on, try to capture the whole

00:23:20.850 --> 00:23:30.011
market so this all as trying to deliver on
all the needs that researchers have in the

00:23:30.011 --> 00:23:38.460
digital area with huge platforms. And this
is like a battle that we almost have lost

00:23:38.460 --> 00:23:45.380
already, as it seems. So there are many
interesting very good free and open source

00:23:45.380 --> 00:23:50.540
alternatives to what they deliver but it's
really not recognized very well why this

00:23:50.540 --> 00:23:56.970
is so important. This is my impression.
A: Yeah I mean I would I would second

00:23:56.970 --> 00:24:02.550
that. So, I think and this is it's
interesting to see the large publishing

00:24:02.550 --> 00:24:07.850
companies now really moving away from
their traditional business because

00:24:07.850 --> 00:24:11.940
apparently they have recognized that they
might be on a losing path there. But

00:24:11.940 --> 00:24:19.180
really to offer a wholesale data
management solutions to institutes. I mean

00:24:19.180 --> 00:24:22.790
there is, this is probably just an
anecdote, but so apparently Elsevier

00:24:22.790 --> 00:24:29.000
offered to I think the Netherlands or the
Dutch government to say that they said:

00:24:29.000 --> 00:24:35.330
Okay, we do all of your data management or
basically you get everything for free, but

00:24:35.330 --> 00:24:41.370
each and every institution has to deliver
but we become your central data deposition

00:24:41.370 --> 00:24:49.940
platform. Which well, unfortunately it
might appeal to some politicians, I think

00:24:49.940 --> 00:24:55.970
it doesn't appeal to anyone else in this
room given that probably Elsevier is a

00:24:55.970 --> 00:25:02.850
company that is even more hated than
Microsoft for reasons completely unknown I

00:25:02.850 --> 00:25:08.160
mean they just make a revenue of thirty-
five percent every year so maybe we should

00:25:08.160 --> 00:25:17.560
just buy stock options.
Q: Oh thank you for your talk. What I not

00:25:17.560 --> 00:25:23.560
completely understand is why we use the
FAIR concept for as a point of reference

00:25:23.560 --> 00:25:29.380
at all. Because I feel like this the
concept of Open Access in science is far

00:25:29.380 --> 00:25:34.150
more applicable to code. So in the end
code is text and it's part of the

00:25:34.150 --> 00:25:38.720
scientific publication system, so we have
references from and to code and such

00:25:38.720 --> 00:25:47.220
things. And the the Open Access yeah yeah
the the concept of Open Access has the

00:25:47.220 --> 00:25:52.300
same ancestors like the scientific
publication system with the Mertonian

00:25:52.300 --> 00:25:59.580
norms of science and such, so why don't
treat code like scientific publications.

00:25:59.580 --> 00:26:05.340
A: Ok, I'm honestly I'm relatively open to
this idea because this is I mean is the

00:26:05.340 --> 00:26:11.140
reason why we're having this discussion.
The mainly what I'm presenting to you now

00:26:11.140 --> 00:26:16.480
is mainly developed out of the existing EU
policies and the EU talks about FAIR a

00:26:16.480 --> 00:26:20.530
lot. Because for them it's an
operationalized thing, it's something that

00:26:20.530 --> 00:26:23.230
they would like to test in the end, they
it's something that they would like to

00:26:23.230 --> 00:26:29.650
score and so on so forth so that paper
pushers have something to do with. But I

00:26:29.650 --> 00:26:36.590
agree that we can simply say well in the
end the openness is more important and

00:26:36.590 --> 00:26:46.530
FAIR, as we already said, isn't open, so
therefore the Open Access would maybe the

00:26:46.530 --> 00:26:53.180
better point to to hook this up so yeah I
agree on that.

00:26:53.180 --> 00:26:57.200
<i>postroll music</i>

00:26:57.200 --> 00:27:20.000
Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
in the year 2020. Join, and help us!