J. Gary Polhill and Bruce Edmonds (2007)
Open Access for Social Simulation
Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation
vol. 10, no. 3 10
For information about citing this article, click here
Received: 19-Jan-2007 Accepted: 21-Apr-2007 Published: 30-Jun-2007
2 End-user licence agreements also often prohibit disassembling or decompiling the software to see how it works, though (at least in European law), there are circumstances in which this is allowed (Directive 91/250/EEC) even if the licence agreement stipulates against it.
3 See http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm
5 More information on the meaning of various terms pertaining to software licences, including those discussed here, can be found at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
6 The Open Source Initiative website explains more about this term. See http://opensource.org/.
7 See http://opensource.org/docs/osd.
8 Voting included: the Australian Capital Territory Electoral Commission, for example, released the source code for its electronic voting system (http://www.elections.act.gov.au/Elecvote.html). However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports on its website that some votes in the November 2004 US elections were cast on electronic voting machines with black box licences (http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/).
9 Various organisations have devised relevant standards (judging from the titles), often available only at great expense; though Jose and Viswanathan pointed out in 1992 that documentation 'standards' are often guidelines rather than stipulations. Here are some examples, in chronological order: NASA-STD-2100-91 "NASA Software Documentation Standard"  (http://satc.gsfc.nasa.gov/assure/docstd.html). IEC 61506 “Documentation of Application Software”  (http://domino.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/artnum/021929) IEEE 1016 “Recommended Practice for Software Design Descriptions”  (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isNumber=16019) BS ISO/IEC 6592:2000 “Information Technology. Guidelines for the documentation of computer-based application systems”  (http://www.standardsdirect.org/standards/standards3/StandardsCatalogue24_view_23963.html) ISO/IEC 18019 “Guidelines for the Design and Preparation of User Documentation for Application Software”  (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=30804).
10 For an extensive introduction to this issue see: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/#Openaccess
11 As in the “Open Archives Initiative”, http://www.openarchives.org/
13“Integrating Socio-Ecological Sciences Through a Community Modeling Framework.” 1-3 March 2007, Arizona State University. http://www.asu.edu/clas/csdc/events/barton.html
14 There are various reasons why not. For example, the research environment may offer more interesting and challenging opportunities for programmers, meaning that those who truly love this art will stay despite lower financial reward.
AXTELL R, Axelrod R, Epstein J and Cohen M D (1995). Aligning simulation models: A case study and results. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 1 (1), pp. 123-141.
BIGBEE A, Ciofii-Revilla C and Luke S (2005). Replication of Sugarscape using MASON. In Troitzsch, K. G. (ed.) Representing Social Reality: Pre-proceedings of the Third Conference of the European Social Simulation Association, Koblenz, September 5-9, 2005. Koblenz: Verlag Dietmar Fölbach. pp. 6-15.
CARNALL D (2000). Medical software's free future. British Medical Journal 321, p. 976.
DE LAAT P B (2005). Copyright or copyleft? An analysis of property regimes for software development. Research Policy 34, pp. 1511-1532.
EDMONDS B and Hales D (2003). Replication, replication and replication: Some hard lessons from model alignment. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6 (4)11. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/4/11.html.
FORERO-PINEDA C (2006). The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries. Research Policy 35, pp. 808-824.
GAMBARDELLA A and Hall B H (2006). Proprietary versus public domain licensing of software and research products. Research Policy 35, pp. 875-892.
GALAN J M and Izquierdo L R (2005). Appearances can be deceiving: Lessons learned re-implementing Axelrod's 'Evolutionary Approach to Norms'. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 8 (3)2. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/3/2.html.
GRIMM V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz S K, Huse G, Huth A, Jepsen J U, Jørgensen C, Mooij W M, Müller B, Pe'er G, Piou C, Railsback S F, Robbins A M, Robbins M M, Rossmanith E, Rüger N, Strand E, Souissi S, Stillman R A, Vabø R, Visser U and DeAngelis D L (2006). A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecological Modelling 198 (1-2), pp. 115-126.
HARNAD S (1998). On-Line Journals and Financial Fire-Walls. Nature 395 (6698): 127-128. http://cogprints.org/1699/index.html
JOSE J M and Viswanathan T (1992). Software documentation and standards. Annals of Library Science and Documentation 39 (4), pp. 123-133.
LIN Y H, Ko T M, Chuang T R and Lin K J (2006). Open source licenses and the creative commons framework: License selection and comparison. Journal of Information Science and Engineering 22 (1), pp. 1-17.
POLHILL J G, Izquierdo L R and Gotts N M (2005). The ghost in the model (and other effects of floating-point arithmetic. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 8 (1)5. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/1/5.html.
SAMPAT B N (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy 35, 772-789.
SCHWEIK C, Evans T and Grove J M (2005). Open source and open content: A framework for collaboration in social-ecological research. Ecology and Society 10 (1): 33. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art33/
STALLMAN R M (2002a). Free software definition. In Gay J (Ed.) Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. Boston, USA: GNU Press, pp. 41-43.
STALLMAN R M (2002b). Why "free software" is better than "open source". In Gay J (Ed.) Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. Boston, USA: GNU Press, pp. 55-60.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
UNESCO Universal Copyright Convention
|Licence||Open Source Definition compliant licence|
|Example Software||A list of compliant licences is given at http://opensource.org/licenses/.|
|Run?||?||"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor." If science is a field of endeavour, and it is generally accepted that using the program in that field entails the unconstrained right to run the program, then an OSD compliant licence would have a 'Yes' entry here. However, the clause is mainly aimed at ensuring commercial exploitation is not prohibited by the licence.|
|Inspect?||Yes||"The program must include source code ..." with the following qualification: "Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost."|
|Reimplement?||No||Patents are not mentioned in the OSD.|
|Modify?||Yes||"The license must allow modifications and derived works..."|
|Distribute?||Yes||"...and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." Again, there is a small qualification: "The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time."|
|Copyleft?||No||There is no stipulation that modified or derived works must be licensed under the same terms. The stipulation is only on the licensor to permit derived works to be distributed under the same terms.|
|Notes||The Open Source Definition is a series of constraints that must be adhered to by compliant licences, rather than a licence itself.|
|Licence||GNU General Public Licence|
|Example Software||Swarm 2.2|
|Run?||?||"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." This suggests that the unrestricted right to run the program is not explicitly part of the licence, however, the licence then states: "The act of running the Program is not restricted..." On balance, this is probably a 'No'.|
|Inspect?||Yes||You must accompany the distribution of object code with "complete corresponding machine-readable source code," or provide a written offer to do so "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution" or access to the written offer you have received.|
|Reimplement?||?||The licence does provide in the event of a patent infringement that "if ... conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License." However, the licence does not explicitly license you to use any patents owned by the licensor. It is not clear if a patent infringement of a distinct piece of software reimplementing the licensed software would cause the GPL to become invalid for the latter.|
|Modify?||Yes||"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program."|
|Distribute?||Yes||"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it ... and copy and distribute ... modifications or work [based on the Program]."|
|Copyleft?||Yes||"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."|
|Notes||The "machine-readable" wording of the licence does not explicitly exclude deliberately obfusticated source code (e.g. automatically replacing meaningful identifier names with meaningless ones), which is a stipulation of OSD compliant licences.|
|Licence||GNU Lesser (or Library) General Public Licence|
|Example Software||Swarm 2.1.1|
|Run?||?||As per GNU GPL, though note that software using the library must be released under a licence that permits "reverse engineering for debugging," which may tip the balance back to 'Yes'.|
|Inspect?||Yes||As per GNU GPL, and see notes to GNU GPL.|
|Reimplement?||?||As per GNU GPL|
|Modify?||Yes||As per GNU GPL|
|Distribute?||Yes||As per GNU GPL|
|Copyleft?||?||It depends on whether the software is a derivative work, or a work that uses the library. The latter is "A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it," about which the licence says that "you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice." For derivative works and modifications to the library, "You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."|
|Notes||Provision is made within the LGPL to convert copies of the library and derivative works thereof to the GPL.|
|Licence||Revised and Original BSD Licences|
|Run?||No||The unrestricted right to run the software is not stipulated. You are given the right to use the software, but the definition of 'use' could be interpreted as meaning only fair use.|
|Inspect?||No||There is no stipulation that the source code be provided.|
|Reimplement?||No||There is no statement made about patent licences.|
|Modify?||Yes||Modification is permitted.|
|Distribute?||Yes||Distribution of modifications is permitted.|
|Copyleft?||No||There is no stipulation as to the licence for derivative works.|
|Licence||Mozilla Public Licence|
|Run?||No||The right to use the software is not explicitly unrestricted.|
|Inspect?||Yes||"The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License," and "any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License."|
|Reimplement?||No||"No patent license is granted: ... separate from the Original Code"|
|Modify?||Yes||The right to modify is explicitly stated.|
|Distribute?||Yes||The right to distribute is explicitly stated.|
|Copyleft?||No||"You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License," where a "Larger Work" is defined as "a work which combines Covered Code or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License."|
|Licence||Academic Free Licence|
|Run?||No||The licence states that "You may use the Original Work in all ways not otherwise restricted or conditioned by this License or by law," [our emphasis] which may unintentionally fall foul of the issue raised with UK law above.|
|Inspect?||Yes||"Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes." As per the OSD, this condition can be satisfied if the Licensor places the source code at a published conveniently accessible location.|
|Reimplement?||Yes||You are granted a licence "under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and import the Original Work and derivative works thereof."|
|Modify?||Yes||"Licensor hereby grants ... You a ... non-exclusive license ... to modify ... the Original Work."|
|Distribute?||Yes||"Licensor hereby grants ... You a ... non-exclusive license ... to distribute ... the Original Work and Derivative Works"|
|Copyleft?||Yes||The licence under which you distribute copies and derivative works must be one "that does not contradict the terms and conditions ... in this Academic Free License."|
|Notes||There are several versions of the Academic Free Licence, with subtle differences between them. The above applies to version 3.|
|Reimplement?||Yes||Public domain means that no-one has any proprietary interests on the article in question.|
|Notes||Public domain software is software that is not copyrighted. This is not the default, even if you have not explicitly written a copyright message in the material. The default, for signatories to the Berne convention, is that the material is copyrighted at the instant of creation.|
Return to Contents of this issue
© Copyright Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation,