Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeTell it to the Tech Transfer Office
Posted by dstranz on 26 Jul 2008 at 03:06 GMT
While I agree that the software used in the generation of research results is as much a part of the work as the wet methods, releasing it as a requirement of publication will run head on into the University's technology transfer office or the company's intellectual property department. Both of these often feel that as something more tangible than a research result, software represents a potential revenue source or competitive edge. This may even extend to the authors, who have sole access to the software and might wish to preserve their ability to pursue their line of research unhindered by the competition.
It's one thing to publish your methods, quite another to turn over the software that will enable others to generate similar results.
RE: Tell it to the Tech Transfer Office
fernan replied to dstranz on 28 Jul 2008 at 14:41 GMT
I don't agree. The scientific method works because we publish methods for other to generate similar results.
In this spirit we also make available tools (bacterial clones, plasmids, software) so that others can reproduce our experiments.
If releasing software is a requirement for publication, it's true that in most cases this will involve the participation of the University's Tech Transfer Office. However, this does not impair distribution of software, even with full sources, and even when there are (large) commercial fees associated with it.
There are many examples of software packages that are "turned over to enable others to generate similar results", and in which the corresponding Tech Transfer Office has been involved in the process of licensing the software.
Phred/Phrap/Consed, PolyBayes, PolyPhred, SignalP are just some examples familiar to me. These are distributed for free in academia, and with licensing fees to for-profit companies.
Software is no different than a monoclonal antibody, or any other form of knowledge that you may want to protect through a patent.
Anyone who has patented something knows that you can't publish your method before patenting it. And if the method is protected by a patent you have a problem if you want to publish it: because publication involves disclosure, with as much detail as possible so that others can "generate similar results".
RE: RE: Tell it to the Tech Transfer Office
biehl replied to fernan on 06 Aug 2008 at 13:18 GMT
Yes: The scientific method works because we publish methods for other to generate similar results. (identical results?)
However, one small comment: In Europe patenting of software is not legal (fortunately) - and neither is patenting of " discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods" (fortunately)
http://www.epo.org/patent...
But I am sure some copyright based license could have a Non-Commercial clause.
RE: Tell it to the Tech Transfer Office
dsingh replied to dstranz on 01 Sep 2008 at 00:09 GMT
I would argue that the entire point is that others should be able to reproduce your results. If you are publishing an algorithm, you must make the code available that you used to implement it. If your goal is to make money from the technology, there can be alternate implementations, and a business model around your science, or just don't publish and keep it a trade secret.
You can choose to release your software under the GPL if you want to protect it. There is a viable, proven framework for that.