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!