1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:23,929
36C3 preroll music
2
00:00:23,929 --> 00:00:30,209
purine:bitter: Thanks a lot to WikiPakaWG
for hosting this and for keeping us all
3
00:00:30,209 --> 00:00:39,280
awake. So probably it's not wrong to say
Good Morning everyone. Okay, what I would
4
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
5
00:00:44,530 --> 00:00:51,860
probably no point in me talking to you for
something like 55 minutes straight. So I
6
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
7
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
8
00:01:08,220 --> 00:01:17,310
considers him- or herself to be a
scientist? Okay, who has the pleasure to
9
00:01:17,310 --> 00:01:25,440
work within the European scientific
system? Okay, and within the German one?
10
00:01:25,440 --> 00:01:34,390
Okay, so negative control: Who knows what
the capital of North Dakota is? Okay, so
11
00:01:34,390 --> 00:01:42,030
there is no rigor mortis in your arms.
Okay, so topic today is Free Software for
12
00:01:42,030 --> 00:01:47,340
Open Science and as I have some
association with the Free Software
13
00:01:47,340 --> 00:01:54,520
Foundation Europe, well we should probably
start with the definitions: So number one,
14
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
15
00:02:00,479 --> 00:02:07,049
that would be released under an either
FSF- or OSI-compliant license. So this is
16
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
17
00:02:17,150 --> 00:02:20,900
definitions pretty much standardized the
same things that they just have different
18
00:02:20,900 --> 00:02:32,389
ways to say it, it should be made sure
that it guarantees the Four Freedoms to
19
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
20
00:02:38,939 --> 00:02:46,109
course this does require the existence and
openness of a source code and the ability
21
00:02:46,109 --> 00:02:54,989
to actually create derivatives. Okay so
and I think for everyone who has been
22
00:02:54,989 --> 00:03:00,279
working in science it's pretty clear that
those four core freedoms are very well
23
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
24
00:03:04,700 --> 00:03:12,189
the work of others and to get humanity
along and increase our overall knowledge.
25
00:03:12,189 --> 00:03:19,630
So for that reason what we're doing there
is exactly that we're exercising those
26
00:03:19,630 --> 00:03:25,309
four freedoms just not necessarily that
we're doing it in a digital or code-based
27
00:03:25,309 --> 00:03:31,279
manner. Okay so that's the first thing.
Then what actually is Open Science? So
28
00:03:31,279 --> 00:03:37,159
first of all, Open Science is a Class A
buzzword. Nevertheless, the European
29
00:03:37,159 --> 00:03:45,299
Commission took the liberty to get a
committee in there, in that case the OSPP,
30
00:03:45,299 --> 00:03:53,120
the Open Science Policy Platform, and
those people developed a lot of bits or
31
00:03:53,120 --> 00:04:01,469
paper, whatever. And what they defined is
eight key areas, they are called sometimes
32
00:04:01,469 --> 00:04:08,030
called "ambitions", sometimes they're
called "priorities", which is the key
33
00:04:08,030 --> 00:04:14,260
things that need to be addressed in the
midterm to move European science to what
34
00:04:14,260 --> 00:04:20,810
they consider to be Open Science. And this
is not only, and that's very important,
35
00:04:20,810 --> 00:04:25,570
about the classical things that you might
know like Open Access and Open Data. Open
36
00:04:25,570 --> 00:04:30,370
Access and Open Data are basically
incorporated in here, so scholarly
37
00:04:30,370 --> 00:04:35,040
communication, it says "Future of
Scholarly Communication", which can be
38
00:04:35,040 --> 00:04:43,160
everything from Open Access to just going
digital. However, we should all be aware
39
00:04:43,160 --> 00:04:50,920
that European Commission now has endorsed
Plan S, which is a rather far-reaching
40
00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:56,290
push towards more or rather radical
program in terms of publishing
41
00:04:56,290 --> 00:05:02,020
requirements, so we can consider that this
part for scholarly communication is really
42
00:05:02,020 --> 00:05:08,970
meant to be Open Access. And then the
other things, so Open Data is what is
43
00:05:08,970 --> 00:05:15,580
called here to be FAIR Data, because the
Commission typically tries to avoid the
44
00:05:15,580 --> 00:05:21,430
term "Open", because "Open" is of course
is not FAIR and FAIR unfortunately is not
45
00:05:21,430 --> 00:05:25,770
"Open". But this is where we lead our
discussions. So this means that we only
46
00:05:25,770 --> 00:05:31,540
have two of the classical Open Science
points that are in here. Everything else
47
00:05:31,540 --> 00:05:37,741
are things like "Incentives", so this is
how can we generate better citation or how
48
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
49
00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:56,600
some reform in how we do citations. Then
"Indicators" is -- was that me or was that
50
00:05:56,600 --> 00:06:04,680
okay -- so "Indicators" is kind of a way
to try to overcome the simple citation
51
00:06:04,680 --> 00:06:12,840
indices and of course especially the
impact factor. "EOSC" for those of you
52
00:06:12,840 --> 00:06:16,410
have not heard that term that's a very
large project, that's the European Open
53
00:06:16,410 --> 00:06:22,150
Science Cloud. It's still rather ill-
defined what it should be, it's getting
54
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
55
00:06:27,250 --> 00:06:32,990
this is about is to really create a large
federated European infrastructure for
56
00:06:32,990 --> 00:06:41,300
scientific data. The main funding for that
one will come from the National States and
57
00:06:41,300 --> 00:06:48,141
so for example the German implementation
is called NFDI, National Research Data
58
00:06:48,141 --> 00:06:53,040
Infrastructure, and will be heavily funded
by nearly 1 billion Euros over the next 10
59
00:06:53,040 --> 00:07:02,820
years so this is the scale that we are
talking about. "Integrity" means how to
60
00:07:02,820 --> 00:07:10,150
assure integrity, "Skills" is how to train
the next generation of scientists and CS
61
00:07:10,150 --> 00:07:15,930
is the abbreviation for "Citizen Science".
So with all of this you see that what Open
62
00:07:15,930 --> 00:07:19,550
Science is not just trying to do tick
marks, what they're really trying to push
63
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
64
00:07:28,570 --> 00:07:36,020
becoming a more egalitarian system and a
more open and participatory system. Okay,
65
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
66
00:07:43,140 --> 00:07:46,870
so one of the things that we need to
define here are we talking about Free
67
00:07:46,870 --> 00:07:54,300
Software for Open Science, which is the
thing that this talk was announced for.
68
00:07:54,300 --> 00:07:57,510
But of course we could also, if that's the
general interest, to talk about Free
69
00:07:57,510 --> 00:08:03,580
Software in Open Science or in science in
general. So distinction would be that the
70
00:08:03,580 --> 00:08:08,890
"for Open Science" is mainly, here we're
talking about software as a research
71
00:08:08,890 --> 00:08:13,890
product, so this is mainly the main focus
software that is created by the scientists
72
00:08:13,890 --> 00:08:22,260
themselves and here we then have of course
issues like how to sustain it how to
73
00:08:22,260 --> 00:08:30,200
ensure quality and how to choose proper
licensing models for it. While the "in
74
00:08:30,200 --> 00:08:34,979
science" is more generally talking about
generic software tools so this is
75
00:08:34,979 --> 00:08:41,280
operating system, office suites and so on
that are just used by scientists in more
76
00:08:41,280 --> 00:08:50,740
general. In both cases the main point of
course is how Free Software can contribute
77
00:08:50,740 --> 00:08:57,279
to the scientific endeavor is of course by
promoting the reproducibility because
78
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
79
00:09:04,539 --> 00:09:11,660
don't need to purchase as given Microsoft
Office version to recreate an Excel table
80
00:09:11,660 --> 00:09:18,729
or something like this and of course also
the attempt to reduce black boxing. The
81
00:09:18,729 --> 00:09:29,329
other thing that is more specific for Free
Software for Open Science is the general
82
00:09:29,329 --> 00:09:35,630
thing that we already said: Okay, so some
of the ideas of Free Software align well
83
00:09:35,630 --> 00:09:41,069
with what we're trying to do in science.
But more importantly the question right
84
00:09:41,069 --> 00:09:47,439
now is: Does it fit the policies under
which we are operating? And so of course
85
00:09:47,439 --> 00:09:55,779
the main policy that most people know is
FAIR. So FAIR stands for Findable,
86
00:09:55,779 --> 00:10:02,260
Accessible Interoperable and Reusable and
it's a kind of a paradigm that was
87
00:10:02,260 --> 00:10:11,709
defined, so published 2016, was in the
making for a couple of years before that
88
00:10:11,709 --> 00:10:18,459
and this is something that was a primarily
geared towards data. The nice thing about
89
00:10:18,459 --> 00:10:25,269
FAIR is that the 2016 paper also
operationalizes this so they give criteria
90
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
91
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
92
00:10:38,589 --> 00:10:44,850
course reuse also says something about,
well you need to put a license on it, but
93
00:10:44,850 --> 00:10:53,110
otherwise it's not that specific. Okay,
now importantly for this one stuff, that
94
00:10:53,110 --> 00:10:59,400
is FAIR does not necessarily align with
Free Software because Free Software means
95
00:10:59,400 --> 00:11:04,239
that there are no restrict- that there are
basically no restrictions in use, while
96
00:11:04,239 --> 00:11:16,749
the reusability for FAIR simply says:
People somehow need to be able to reuse
97
00:11:16,749 --> 00:11:23,379
it, so there needs to be a clear pathway.
That can still be a proprietary license,
98
00:11:23,379 --> 00:11:29,950
okay and that license might still not
allow you to do everything with it, there
99
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
100
00:11:36,369 --> 00:11:42,290
fit the usual - the Free Software
definitions. On the other hand of course,
101
00:11:42,290 --> 00:11:54,149
Free Software doesn't say anything about
-- Oh No! I killed the alpaca! --
102
00:11:54,149 --> 00:12:00,019
Applause
Okay, I'm probably gonna be kicked off the
103
00:12:00,019 --> 00:12:14,170
stage any minute, okay sorry. Alright, so
on the other hand, I can write beautiful
104
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
105
00:12:18,070 --> 00:12:24,819
it somewhere in my garden. Okay, so then
it's neither findable nor accessible and
106
00:12:24,819 --> 00:12:30,879
this is of course also something where the
classical definitions for Free Software
107
00:12:30,879 --> 00:12:34,760
don't necessarily match these two
criteria, which nevertheless also for
108
00:12:34,760 --> 00:12:42,920
software do make sense. Finally one last
thing is that FAIR defines a product, so
109
00:12:42,920 --> 00:12:46,249
it says: Okay, so the outcome of your
research needs to comply with different
110
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
111
00:12:51,269 --> 00:12:55,950
and maybe from a software development
perspective this is something that is more
112
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
113
00:13:00,569 --> 00:13:09,480
things that also one of the German
committees so the RfII has recently
114
00:13:09,480 --> 00:13:15,330
started to criticize for FAIR that we say
okay, FAIR data just says this one, but
115
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
116
00:13:19,620 --> 00:13:27,709
have is high quality FAIR data. So FAIR
clearly is some kind of minimal consensus
117
00:13:27,709 --> 00:13:35,160
it's condicio sine qua non, but we
probably need to extend it at this point
118
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
119
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
120
00:13:48,700 --> 00:13:54,869
less the brief introduction, now there are
a couple of things that we can discuss
121
00:13:54,869 --> 00:14:02,059
further, depending on your interest. And
that would be basically what about the
122
00:14:02,059 --> 00:14:06,200
current European policies, before we
review what about the current German
123
00:14:06,200 --> 00:14:15,989
policies, what about generic Free Software
tools. But maybe that's the point where
124
00:14:15,989 --> 00:14:32,240
you could say something to
get us going a bit.
125
00:14:32,240 --> 00:14:35,300
Question: I think it's working -- You
mentioned that the current software
126
00:14:35,300 --> 00:14:39,720
standards might not be in line with the
policies, what were you exactly referring
127
00:14:39,720 --> 00:14:41,720
to?
Answer: Can you repeat this?
128
00:14:41,720 --> 00:14:45,850
Q: You mentioned before that the current
software procedures or standards might not
129
00:14:45,850 --> 00:14:51,059
be in line with the policies in the
European Union. What exactly did you mean
130
00:14:51,059 --> 00:15:03,860
by that?
A: So the thing is that the so I can
131
00:15:03,860 --> 00:15:11,379
comply with OSI regulations for Open
Source Software, but none of our funding
132
00:15:11,379 --> 00:15:17,809
bodies says you need to be OSI compliant.
What they say typically is you should do
133
00:15:17,809 --> 00:15:23,949
stuff that is FAIR but right now one of
the issues, this is what basically this
134
00:15:23,949 --> 00:15:32,089
slide then says, is the question whether
any of the policy makers really define
135
00:15:32,089 --> 00:15:37,680
code as a primary research object. And
that's right now not the case so therefore
136
00:15:37,680 --> 00:15:44,379
everyone assumes that code behaves like
data and to equal code with data is
137
00:15:44,379 --> 00:15:50,480
something where some people get cold
shivers, others don't because it is an
138
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
139
00:15:54,579 --> 00:16:02,759
us in some ways. And the main point here
is that code has some idiosyncrasies that
140
00:16:02,759 --> 00:16:06,539
make it distinct from data and this is
where our policies break. On the other
141
00:16:06,539 --> 00:16:11,769
hand, some of the policies that we came up
-- not for research but in general, so
142
00:16:11,769 --> 00:16:17,600
from the from the Free Software
perspective -- that we made up there,
143
00:16:17,600 --> 00:16:23,009
didn't make it into the policy documents
and so therefore are not incorporated
144
00:16:23,009 --> 00:16:30,199
there. Okay, so FAIR criteria and the
other ones don't completely overlap. So
145
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
146
00:16:33,839 --> 00:16:47,830
would take it one to one.
Q: So a question about the topic item to
147
00:16:47,830 --> 00:16:53,379
start the licensing. So when we say we
have a commercial company who like
148
00:16:53,379 --> 00:16:58,989
Microsoft who develops an office package
and when you say Free Software for Open
149
00:16:58,989 --> 00:17:04,750
Science it would be better to like invest
the money not into license cost where
150
00:17:04,750 --> 00:17:10,000
reoccurring but better for like and like a
bigger thing like country to invest more
151
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
152
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
153
00:17:24,700 --> 00:17:32,250
not necessary is not necessarily so you
could construct it in a way that it
154
00:17:32,250 --> 00:17:37,440
actually overlaps with FAIR. Because
you're talking about reproducibility, oh
155
00:17:37,440 --> 00:17:41,780
well so okay, FAIR doesn't say
reproducibility but it says accessibility
156
00:17:41,780 --> 00:17:46,040
and if you're using formats that are
proprietary you could say okay well this
157
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
158
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
159
00:17:55,120 --> 00:18:02,800
that was never on the agenda to try to be
eradicated. This is, so the generic
160
00:18:02,800 --> 00:18:08,880
software part is just something that I
that came into this whole process later,
161
00:18:08,880 --> 00:18:16,780
initially it was really geared towards
the: How can scientists make sure that or
162
00:18:16,780 --> 00:18:21,280
how does the software produced by
scientists is both Free Software and
163
00:18:21,280 --> 00:18:27,240
contributes to Open Science and what do we
need to do to create potentially
164
00:18:27,240 --> 00:18:32,870
additional funding opportunities for,
because this is where typically breaks, to
165
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
166
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
167
00:18:46,040 --> 00:18:52,680
right now is not considered part of the
research process but in reality, so by the
168
00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:58,140
policy makers, but in reality it already
has become that. Now if you're saying you
169
00:18:58,140 --> 00:19:03,530
are using generic software or generic
office suits for that one, then yes, we
170
00:19:03,530 --> 00:19:08,750
are investing a lot on in these things in
the tertiary education and in the research
171
00:19:08,750 --> 00:19:15,660
sector and, personal opinion, yes we
should spend this on things that doesn't
172
00:19:15,660 --> 00:19:21,750
nudge people towards proprietary
solutions. But the question there but
173
00:19:21,750 --> 00:19:29,000
that's something that is because it it has
a stronger education component also for
174
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
175
00:19:35,110 --> 00:19:40,890
something that more people here are
interested in. But I agree that it doesn't
176
00:19:40,890 --> 00:19:48,610
overlap completely, doesn't strongly
overlap with the with the Open Science
177
00:19:48,610 --> 00:19:59,730
part.
Q: Right, okay. I've heard some people
178
00:19:59,730 --> 00:20:05,360
work on the FAIR principles specific for
software. You've heard about it and you
179
00:20:05,360 --> 00:20:13,660
know what kind of the differences are?
A: Yes, so thanks for this input. So let
180
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
181
00:20:24,460 --> 00:20:32,680
came out a couple of weeks ago by Anna-
Lena Lamprecht, she's from the Netherlands
182
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
183
00:20:41,940 --> 00:20:47,580
original FAIR criteria and check for each
of those ones does it apply to software,
184
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,
185
00:20:59,460 --> 00:21:04,340
well, better fits into the process. So
they for example say well so there needs
186
00:21:04,340 --> 00:21:09,900
to be some kind of documented quality
control, they're more talking of course
187
00:21:09,900 --> 00:21:13,850
about software repositories, they then
include versioning, which is one of the
188
00:21:13,850 --> 00:21:18,750
huge things that sets code apart from
data, which is once it's released
189
00:21:18,750 --> 00:21:25,450
typically a rather static object. So
they're trying to get somewhere and I
190
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
191
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
192
00:21:38,870 --> 00:21:47,940
RSE19 conference also, where Anna-Lena
also was there, and it tries to stick very
193
00:21:47,940 --> 00:21:52,890
closely to FAIR, because they assume that
this is what people know. Which I think is
194
00:21:52,890 --> 00:21:57,230
good. On the other hand there's a very
clear recommendation form most bodies that
195
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
196
00:22:01,820 --> 00:22:06,800
"additional letters" for FAIR and they
really want to have those basically as one
197
00:22:06,800 --> 00:22:14,760
concept to stick on to stick with data. So
therefore I think it would have been
198
00:22:14,760 --> 00:22:22,580
necessary have a bolder step to to try to
work in all the established development
199
00:22:22,580 --> 00:22:28,700
policies that we already have than just to
stick as close as possible to FAIR and
200
00:22:28,700 --> 00:22:33,660
then just change the nitty-gritty details,
which is what they did. But nevertheless I
201
00:22:33,660 --> 00:22:37,680
think it's it's something that is clearly
worth reading.
202
00:22:37,680 --> 00:22:42,690
Q: Thanks a lot for your talk this
resonated a lot with me and as someone
203
00:22:42,690 --> 00:22:49,520
working in research infrastructure I think
it's super important that we focus on
204
00:22:49,520 --> 00:22:55,760
recognizing research infrastructure so all
kinds of services like sustainable data
205
00:22:55,760 --> 00:23:01,750
storage for researchers, tools that help
make data discoverable and things like
206
00:23:01,750 --> 00:23:04,710
that. That this should be considered a
public good right?
207
00:23:04,710 --> 00:23:08,830
A: Yes
Q: And so next to what you mentioned and
208
00:23:08,830 --> 00:23:14,040
rightly so with Microsoft, the other risk
that I currently see, is that legacy
209
00:23:14,040 --> 00:23:20,850
publishers like Elsevier, like Springer-
Nature and so on, try to capture the whole
210
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
211
00:23:30,011 --> 00:23:38,460
digital area with huge platforms. And this
is like a battle that we almost have lost
212
00:23:38,460 --> 00:23:45,380
already, as it seems. So there are many
interesting very good free and open source
213
00:23:45,380 --> 00:23:50,540
alternatives to what they deliver but it's
really not recognized very well why this
214
00:23:50,540 --> 00:23:56,970
is so important. This is my impression.
A: Yeah I mean I would I would second
215
00:23:56,970 --> 00:24:02,550
that. So, I think and this is it's
interesting to see the large publishing
216
00:24:02,550 --> 00:24:07,850
companies now really moving away from
their traditional business because
217
00:24:07,850 --> 00:24:11,940
apparently they have recognized that they
might be on a losing path there. But
218
00:24:11,940 --> 00:24:19,180
really to offer a wholesale data
management solutions to institutes. I mean
219
00:24:19,180 --> 00:24:22,790
there is, this is probably just an
anecdote, but so apparently Elsevier
220
00:24:22,790 --> 00:24:29,000
offered to I think the Netherlands or the
Dutch government to say that they said:
221
00:24:29,000 --> 00:24:35,330
Okay, we do all of your data management or
basically you get everything for free, but
222
00:24:35,330 --> 00:24:41,370
each and every institution has to deliver
but we become your central data deposition
223
00:24:41,370 --> 00:24:49,940
platform. Which well, unfortunately it
might appeal to some politicians, I think
224
00:24:49,940 --> 00:24:55,970
it doesn't appeal to anyone else in this
room given that probably Elsevier is a
225
00:24:55,970 --> 00:25:02,850
company that is even more hated than
Microsoft for reasons completely unknown I
226
00:25:02,850 --> 00:25:08,160
mean they just make a revenue of thirty-
five percent every year so maybe we should
227
00:25:08,160 --> 00:25:17,560
just buy stock options.
Q: Oh thank you for your talk. What I not
228
00:25:17,560 --> 00:25:23,560
completely understand is why we use the
FAIR concept for as a point of reference
229
00:25:23,560 --> 00:25:29,380
at all. Because I feel like this the
concept of Open Access in science is far
230
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
231
00:25:34,150 --> 00:25:38,720
scientific publication system, so we have
references from and to code and such
232
00:25:38,720 --> 00:25:47,220
things. And the the Open Access yeah yeah
the the concept of Open Access has the
233
00:25:47,220 --> 00:25:52,300
same ancestors like the scientific
publication system with the Mertonian
234
00:25:52,300 --> 00:25:59,580
norms of science and such, so why don't
treat code like scientific publications.
235
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
236
00:26:05,340 --> 00:26:11,140
reason why we're having this discussion.
The mainly what I'm presenting to you now
237
00:26:11,140 --> 00:26:16,480
is mainly developed out of the existing EU
policies and the EU talks about FAIR a
238
00:26:16,480 --> 00:26:20,530
lot. Because for them it's an
operationalized thing, it's something that
239
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
240
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
241
00:26:29,650 --> 00:26:36,590
agree that we can simply say well in the
end the openness is more important and
242
00:26:36,590 --> 00:26:46,530
FAIR, as we already said, isn't open, so
therefore the Open Access would maybe the
243
00:26:46,530 --> 00:26:53,180
better point to to hook this up so yeah I
agree on that.
244
00:26:53,180 --> 00:26:57,200
postroll music
245
00:26:57,200 --> 00:27:20,000
Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
in the year 2020. Join, and help us!