A choice, not an obligation

I Kappas,VJ Promponas,CA Ouzounis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-023-00039-9

IF: 9.071

2024-01-02

EMBO Reports

Abstract:The timing of making software open source should not be dictated by journal guidelines.

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Freedom From Restriction, Freedom Of A Restriction: A Comparison Of Some Open Source Software Licenses

Martin A. Coleman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1402.2079

2014-02-10

Abstract:There is a multitude of licenses out there for a software developer to choose from, but a lot of programmers would prefer to not have to have a legal degree in order to understand them and would rather just have their code out in the public being used. This paper examines a few of the more popular and common software licenses available and compares their conditions from the perspective that a developer wanted to scratch their proverbial itch, have their code be used and maybe even get credit for it. This paper attempts to clarify which license a developer would benefit from the most if they just want to have their code used, have their name out there and not be sued if anything breaks.

Computers and Society
Open Source Software Opportunities and Risks

John Sherlock,Manoj Muniswamaiah,Lauren Clarke,Shawn Cicoria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1812.11697

2018-12-31

Other Computer Science

Abstract:Open Source Software (OSS) history is traced to initial efforts in 1971 at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Lab, the initial goals of OSS around Free vs. Freedom, and its evolution and impact on commercial and custom applications. Through OSS history, much of the research and has been around contributors (suppliers) to OSS projects, the commercialization, and overall success of OSS as a development process. In conjunction with OSS growth, intellectual property issues and licensing issues still remain. The consumers of OSS, application architects, in developing commercial or internal applications based upon OSS should consider license risk as they compose their applications using Component Based Software Development (CBSD) approaches, either through source code, binary, or standard protocols such as HTTP.
On the modification and revocation of open source licences

Paul Gagnon,Misha Benjamin,Justine Gauthier,Catherine Regis,Jenny Lee,Alexei Nordell-Markovits

2024-05-29

Abstract:Historically, open source commitments have been deemed irrevocable once materials are released under open source licenses. In this paper, the authors argue for the creation of a subset of rights that allows open source contributors to force users to (i) update to the most recent version of a model, (ii) accept new use case restrictions, or even (iii) cease using the software entirely. While this would be a departure from the traditional open source approach, the legal, reputational and moral risks related to open-sourcing AI models could justify contributors having more control over downstream uses. Recent legislative changes have also opened the door to liability of open source contributors in certain cases. The authors believe that contributors would welcome the ability to ensure that downstream users are implementing updates that address issues like bias, guardrail workarounds or adversarial attacks on their contributions. Finally, this paper addresses how this license category would interplay with RAIL licenses, and how it should be operationalized and adopted by key stakeholders such as OSS platforms and scanning tools.

Digital Libraries,Computers and Society
Assessing open source software as a scholarly contribution

Lou Hafer,Arthur E. Kirkpatrick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1610252.1610285

IF: 22.7

2009-12-01

Communications of the ACM

Abstract:Introduction Academic computer science has an odd relationship with software: Publishing papers about software is considered a distinctly stronger contribution than publishing the software. The historical reasons for this paradox no longer apply, but their legacy remains. This limits researchers who see the open-source software movement as an opportunity to make a scholarly contribution. Expanded definitions of scholarship acknowledge both application and discovery as important components. 1 One obstacle remains: evaluation. To raise software to the status of a first-class contribution, we propose "best practices" for the evaluation of the scholarly contribution of open-source software. Typically, scholars who develop software do not include it as a primary contribution for performance reviews. Instead, they write articles about the software and present the articles as contributions. This conflation of articles and software serves neither medium well. An article describes an original intellectual contribution consisting of an idea, the argument for its importance and correctness, and supporting data. In contrast, software is more often an implementation of prior ideas in a usable form. It bridges the often considerable gap between an idea and the practical application of that idea. The original idea and its implementation represent distinct kinds of contribution. The critical gap is the perceived incomparability of these two contributions. Lacking a concise description adapted to the traditional practices of performance review committees, software is difficult to evaluate as a scholarly contribution and is often relegated to second-class status. We propose a framework for common assessment based on widely accepted definitions of scholarship. Within this general framework, we consider the material and procedures that a performance review committee uses to evaluate a publication. We then describe how software can be summarized in a compatible form of bibliographic citation and supplementary material.

computer science, theory & methods, software engineering, hardware & architecture
The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva,Quan-Hoang Vuong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03960-9

IF: 3.801

2021-05-08

Scientometrics

Abstract:Logically, and by most common standards, academics would be pleased to be cited, considering it a form of recognition of their intellect. In return, especially those with high citation counts, such as Clarivate Analytics' Highly Cited Researchers, can benefit through peer recognition, rewards, funding, securing a better position, or expanding a collaborative network. Despite known and untold benefits, one issue has not been discussed: the right to refuse to be cited or the right to refuse a citation. Academics might not want to be cited by papers published in truly predatory journals, papers with false authors, or sting papers with falsified elements that employ underhanded ethical tactics. Currently, academics generally have the freedom to select where they publish their findings and choose studies they cite, so it is highly probable that requests to remove citations or refuse citations might never become formal publishing policy. Nonetheless, this academic discussion is worth having as valid and invalid literature increasingly gets mixed through citations, and as the grey zone between predatory/non-predatory and scholarly/unscholarly becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Social Preferences and Open Source Software Development.

Xianjun Geng,Lihui Lin,Gang Peng

2014-01-01

Abstract:Open source software (OSS), and open innovation in general, has received increasing attention from both researchers and practitioners. Based on recent literature on social preference from behavior economics, we propose a finite-horizon dynamic model to study the interactions between OSS developers who are either purely self-interested or conditional cooperators. We find that selfinterested developers who are predicted to free ride under conventional analysis may contribute to a public good, and the existence of purely these developers may, under certain conditions, even benefit the provision of a public good. We further analyze how code architecture affects OSS development outcome and propose that a higher level of code modularity leads to more code contributions overall, due to the strategic behavior of self-interested developers. However, a right mix of the two types of developers plays a critical role for modular design to make an impact. The findings bear important theoretical as well as practical implications and provide guidelines for OSS development and the collective innovation in general.
Analysis of open source license selection for the GitHub programming community

Xin Wu,Jian-Yu Wu,Ming-Hui Zhou,Zhi-Qiang Wang,Li-Yun Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.00981

2020-09-02

Software Engineering

Abstract:Developers usually select different open source licenses to restrain the conditions of using open source software, in order to protect intellectual property rights effectively and maintain the long-term development of the software. However, the open source community has a wide variety of licenses available, developers generally find it difficult to understand the differences between different open source license. And existing open source license selection tools require developers to understand the terms of the open source license and identify their business needs, which makes it hard for developers to make the right choice. Although academia has extensive research to the open source license, but there is no systematic analysis on the actual difficulties of the developers to choose the open source license, thus lacking a clear understanding, for this reason, the purpose of this paper is to understand the difficulties faced by open source developers in choosing open source licenses, analyze the components of open source license and the affecting factors of open source license selection, and to provide references for developers to choose open source licenses.
Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS): design and first-year review

Arfon M Smith,Kyle E Niemeyer,Daniel S Katz,Lorena A Barba,George Githinji,Melissa Gymrek,Kathryn D Huff,Christopher R Madan,Abigail Cabunoc Mayes,Kevin M Moerman,Pjotr Prins,Karthik Ram,Ariel Rokem,Tracy K Teal,Roman Valls Guimera,Jacob T Vanderplas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.147

2018-01-25

Abstract:This article describes the motivation, design, and progress of the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). JOSS is a free and open-access journal that publishes articles describing research software. It has the dual goals of improving the quality of the software submitted and providing a mechanism for research software developers to receive credit. While designed to work within the current merit system of science, JOSS addresses the dearth of rewards for key contributions to science made in the form of software. JOSS publishes articles that encapsulate scholarship contained in the software itself, and its rigorous peer review targets the software components: functionality, documentation, tests, continuous integration, and the license. A JOSS article contains an abstract describing the purpose and functionality of the software, references, and a link to the software archive. The article is the entry point of a JOSS submission, which encompasses the full set of software artifacts. Submission and review proceed in the open, on GitHub. Editors, reviewers, and authors work collaboratively and openly. Unlike other journals, JOSS does not reject articles requiring major revision; while not yet accepted, articles remain visible and under review until the authors make adequate changes (or withdraw, if unable to meet requirements). Once an article is accepted, JOSS gives it a DOI, deposits its metadata in Crossref, and the article can begin collecting citations on indexers like Google Scholar and other services. Authors retain copyright of their JOSS article, releasing it under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. In its first year, starting in May 2016, JOSS published 111 articles, with more than 40 additional articles under review. JOSS is a sponsored project of the nonprofit organization NumFOCUS and is an affiliate of the Open Source Initiative.

Digital Libraries,Software Engineering
The case for open computer programs

Darrel C. Ince,Leslie Hatton,John Graham-Cumming

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10836

IF: 64.8

2012-02-01

Nature

Abstract:Scientific reproducibility now very often depends on the computational method being available to duplicate, so here it is argued that all source code should be freely available.

multidisciplinary sciences
Astronomical Software Wants To Be Free: A Manifesto

Benjamin J. Weiner,Michael R. Blanton,Alison L. Coil,Michael C. Cooper,Romeel Davé,David W. Hogg,Bradford P. Holden,Patrik Jonsson,Susan A. Kassin,Jennifer M. Lotz,John Moustakas,Jeffrey A. Newman,J.X. Prochaska,Peter J. Teuben,Christy A. Tremonti,Christopher N.A. Willmer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0903.3971

2009-03-24

Abstract:Astronomical software is now a fact of daily life for all hands-on members of our community. Purpose-built software for data reduction and modeling tasks becomes ever more critical as we handle larger amounts of data and simulations. However, the writing of astronomical software is unglamorous, the rewards are not always clear, and there are structural disincentives to releasing software publicly and to embedding it in the scientific literature, which can lead to significant duplication of effort and an incomplete scientific record. We identify some of these structural disincentives and suggest a variety of approaches to address them, with the goals of raising the quality of astronomical software, improving the lot of scientist-authors, and providing benefits to the entire community, analogous to the benefits provided by open access to large survey and simulation datasets. Our aim is to open a conversation on how to move forward. We advocate that: (1) the astronomical community consider software as an integral and fundable part of facility construction and science programs; (2) that software release be considered as integral to the open and reproducible scientific process as are publication and data release; (3) that we adopt technologies and repositories for releasing and collaboration on software that have worked for open-source software; (4) that we seek structural incentives to make the release of software and related publications easier for scientist-authors; (5) that we consider new ways of funding the development of grass-roots software; (6) and that we rethink our values to acknowledge that astronomical software development is not just a technical endeavor, but a fundamental part of our scientific practice.

Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics
Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

Karen Shashok

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1701.02461

2017-01-10

Abstract:This article offers a personal perspective on the current state of academic publishing, and posits that the scientific community is beset with journals that contribute little valuable knowledge, overload the community's capacity for high-quality peer review, and waste resources. Open access publishing can offer solutions that benefit researchers and other information users, as well as institutions and funders, but commercial journal publishers have influenced open access policies and practices in ways that favor their economic interests over those of other stakeholders in knowledge creation and sharing. One way to free research from constraints on access is the diamond route of open access publishing, in which institutions and funders that produce new knowledge reclaim responsibility for publication via institutional journals or other open platforms. I argue that research journals (especially those published for profit) may no longer be fit for purpose, and hope that readers will consider whether the time has come to put responsibility for publishing back into the hands of researchers and their institutions. The potential advantages and challenges involved in a shift away from for-profit journals in favor of institutional open access publishing are explored.

Digital Libraries,Computers and Society
Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva,Vedran Katavić

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ebce-2016-0011

2016-12-01

Abstract:Abstract In this opinion piece, some of the practices of academic publication in the biomedical field related to the rewarding, or the lack thereof, of peer reviewers are described and discussed. The role and possibly exploitative relationship of mainstream, established publishers of prestigious journals towards their contributors (authors), and peer reviewers is considered. In addition, the role and accountability of publishers and contributors in “predatory” journals is assessed. Professionals who are recruited by the publishing industry, especially the for-profit industry, either as peer reviewers or editors, to complete a professional task, should be rewarded financially as professionals, as for other sectors of the economy, and not simply exploited for free. Points systems or discounts off a publisher’s products do not constitute sufficient, or fair, compensation.
Open access is shaping scientific communication

Mark J. McCabe,Frank Mueller-Langer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp8882

IF: 56.9

2024-09-14

Science

Abstract:Funders and publishers should roll out policies in ways to support their evaluation

multidisciplinary sciences
The price of freedom: Open access, editorial labour, and prestige in academic publishing

Adam Grydehøj,Ping Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.422

2023-05-17

Island Studies Journal

Abstract:This paper discusses tensions in journal editing and management, particularly for non-fee charging open access (diamond open access) journals. Even diamond open access journals and other journals published on a non-commercial basis are subject to financial and labour costs. Because diamond open access journals do not gain income from subscriptions or article processing charges (APCs), every published paper presents additional costs. Whereas commercially published journals depend upon substantial free academic labour, unfunded or underfunded diamond open access journals depend upon both substantial free academic labour and free non-academic labour. This encourages editors to be selective about the kinds of submissions on which they spend their time. The importance of maintaining a journal's prestige, as measured through inclusion in bibliometric indices, incentivises further selectivity. Different kinds of papers are suitable for different kinds of journals. Even publications like Island Studies Journal that are radically accessible to authors and readers in diverse financial circumstances must make difficult choices when deciding what material to publish.

geography,social sciences, interdisciplinary
FAIR-USE4OS: Guidelines for Creating Impactful Open-Source Software

Raphael Sonabend,Hugo Gruson,Leo Wolansky,Agnes Kiragga,Daniel S. Katz

2024-04-03

Abstract:This paper extends the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) guidelines to provide criteria for assessing if software conforms to best practices in open source. By adding 'USE' (User-Centered, Sustainable, Equitable), software development can adhere to open source best practice by incorporating user-input early on, ensuring front-end designs are accessible to all possible stakeholders, and planning long-term sustainability alongside software design. The FAIR-USE4OS guidelines will allow funders and researchers to more effectively evaluate and plan open source software projects. There is good evidence of funders increasingly mandating that all funded research software is open source; however, even under the FAIR guidelines, this could simply mean software released on public repositories with a Zenodo DOI. By creating FAIR-USE software, best practice can be demonstrated from the very beginning of the design process and the software has the greatest chance of success by being impactful.

Software Engineering
Rational Thinking on the Application of Open Source Software in Digital Library

Cai Xingrong,Zhang Qiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0252-3116.2007.04.009

2007-01-01

Abstract:The paper takes a rational thinking on the application of open source software (hereafter OSS) in digital library field: ① The development of OSS in digital library should obey the basic idea which is openness, collaboration and development. ② Though in many cases the cost of OSS seems lower than those associated with library reliance upon commercial software, open source dose not mean free and the real costs in the OSS’s application involve liences fee, development fee and maintenance fee. ③ The sustainable development of OSS in digital library lies in the following three factors: open source community, open source projects and open source talents.
Free and Open-Source Software is not an Emerging Property but Rather the Result of Studied Design

Paolo Magrassi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1012.5625

2010-12-27

Abstract:Free and open source software (FOSS) is considered by many, along with Wikipedia, the proof of an ongoing paradigm shift from hierarchically-managed and market-driven production of knowledge to heterarchical, collaborative and commons-based production styles. In such perspective, it has become common place to refer to FOSS as a manifestation of collective intelligence where deliverables and artefacts emerge by virtue of mere cooperation, with no need for supervising leadership. The paper argues that this assumption is based on limited understanding of the software development process, and may lead to wrong conclusions as to the potential of peer production. The development of a less than trivial piece of software, irrespective of whether it be FOSS or proprietary, is a complex cooperative effort requiring the participation of many (often thousands of) individuals. A subset of the participants always play the role of leading system and subsystem designers, determining architecture and functionality; the rest of the people work "underneath" them in a logical, functional sense. While new and powerful forces, including FOSS, are clearly at work in the post-industrial, networked econ-omy, the currently ingenuous stage of research in the field of collective intelligence and networked cooperation must give way to a deeper level of consciousness, which requires an understanding of the software development process.

Computers and Society,Social and Information Networks
What to share, when, and where: balancing the objectives and complexities of open source software contributions

Johan Linåker,Björn Regnell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.00047

2022-07-29

Software Engineering

Abstract:Context: Software-intensive organizations' rationale for sharing Open Source Software (OSS) may be driven by both idealistic, strategic and commercial objectives, and include both monetary as well as non-monetary benefits. To gain the potential benefits, an organization may need to consider what they share and how, while taking into account risks, costs and other complexities. Objective: This study aims to empirically investigate objectives and complexities organizations need to consider and balance between when deciding on what software to share as OSS, when to share it, and whether to create a new or contribute to an existing community. Method: A multiple-case study of three case organizations was conducted in two research cycles, with data gathered from interviews with 20 practitioners from these organizations. The data was analyzed qualitatively in an inductive and iterative coding process. Results: 12 contribution objectives and 15 contribution complexities were found. Objectives include opportunities for improving reputation, managing suppliers, managing partners and competitors, and exploiting externally available knowledge and resources. Complexities include risk of loosing control, risk of giving away competitive advantage, risk of creating negative exposure, costs of contributing, and the possibility and need to contribute to an existing or new community. Conclusions: Cross-case analysis and interview validation show that the identified objectives and complexities offer organizations a possibility to reflect on and adapt their contribution strategies based on their specific contexts and business goals.
Open Source Software: An Approach to Controlling Usage and Risk in Application Ecosystems

Stan Zajdel,Diego Elias Costa,Hafedh Mili

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.10358

2022-06-21

Software Engineering

Abstract:The Open Source Software movement has been growing exponentially for a number of years with no signs of slowing. Driving this growth is the widespread availability of libraries and frameworks that provide many functionalities. Developers are saving time and money incorporating this functionality into their applications resulting in faster more feature-rich releases. Despite the growing success and the advantages that open source software provides, there is a dark side. Due to its community construction and largely unregulated distribution, the majority of open source software contains bugs, vulnerabilities and other issues making it highly susceptible to exploits. The lack of oversight, in general, hinders the quality of this software resulting in a trickle-down effect in the applications that use it. Additionally, developers who use open source tend to arbitrarily download the software into their build systems but rarely keep track of what they have downloaded resulting in an excessive amount of open source software in their applications and in their ecosystem. This paper discusses processes and practices that users of open source software can implement into their environments that can safely track and control the introduction and usage of open source software into their applications, and report on some preliminary results obtained in an industrial context. We conclude by discussing governance issues related to the disciplined use and reuse of open source and areas for further improvements.
Promoting an open research culture

B. A. Nosek,G. Alter,G. C. Banks,D. Borsboom,S. D. Bowman,S. J. Breckler,S. Buck,C. D. Chambers,G. Chin,G. Christensen,M. Contestabile,A. Dafoe,E. Eich,J. Freese,R. Glennerster,D. Goroff,D. P. Green,B. Hesse,M. Humphreys,J. Ishiyama,D. Karlan,A. Kraut,A. Lupia,P. Mabry,T. Madon,N. Malhotra,E. Mayo-Wilson,M. McNutt,E. Miguel,E. Levy Paluck,U. Simonsohn,C. Soderberg,B. A. Spellman,J. Turitto,G. VandenBos,S. Vazire,E. J. Wagenmakers,R. Wilson,T. Yarkoni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374

IF: 56.9

2015-06-26

Science

Abstract:Author guidelines for journals could help to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility

multidisciplinary sciences

A choice, not an obligation

Freedom From Restriction, Freedom Of A Restriction: A Comparison Of Some Open Source Software Licenses

Open Source Software Opportunities and Risks

On the modification and revocation of open source licences

Assessing open source software as a scholarly contribution

The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation

Social Preferences and Open Source Software Development.

Analysis of open source license selection for the GitHub programming community

Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS): design and first-year review

The case for open computer programs

Astronomical Software Wants To Be Free: A Manifesto

Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry

Open access is shaping scientific communication

The price of freedom: Open access, editorial labour, and prestige in academic publishing

FAIR-USE4OS: Guidelines for Creating Impactful Open-Source Software

Rational Thinking on the Application of Open Source Software in Digital Library

Free and Open-Source Software is not an Emerging Property but Rather the Result of Studied Design

What to share, when, and where: balancing the objectives and complexities of open source software contributions

Open Source Software: An Approach to Controlling Usage and Risk in Application Ecosystems

Promoting an open research culture