Skip to main content


We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities:


Dear Paula,
thank you so much for sharing.
I do not necessarily agree with everything that is written therein (in
particular, I strongly disagree on the statement about patentability of software
in the companion “Research Software Guidelines” [1]), but I like these documents for
several reasons:
– the key policy is stated clearly in the introduction
– it provides a decision diagram (technically, it’s not a tree ;-))
– the drafting committee involved a variety of expertises and put researchers in the loop
– they are approved by the board of the University
– they are public
It is a great example to follow.

Roberto Di Cosmo
[1] despite the existence of 30.000+ software patents delivered by the EPO, and
repeated efforts from lobbys to alter Article 52 of the European Patent
Convention (, the legal
value of a software patent in Europe is far from established. The experience
I am aware of with software patents is that they cost a fortune, their
legal value is uncertain, and they are mostly useless in practice for
performing technical transfer around software.
Computer Science Professor
(on leave at INRIA from IRIF/Université de Paris)
Software Heritage
Bureau C328 E-mail : ***@***.***
2, Rue Simone Iff Web page :
CS 42112 Twitter :
75589 Paris Cedex 12 Tel : +33 1 80 49 44 42
GPG fingerprint 2931 20CE 3A5A 5390 98EC 8BFC FCCA C3BE 39CB 12D3