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 (https://fsfe.org/activities/swpat/status.en.html), 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)
Director
Software Heritage https://www.softwareheritage.org
INRIA
Bureau C328 E-mail : ***@***.***
2, Rue Simone Iff Web page : http://www.dicosmo.org
CS 42112 Twitter : http://twitter.com/rdicosmo
75589 Paris Cedex 12 Tel : +33 1 80 49 44 42
——————————————————————
GPG fingerprint 2931 20CE 3A5A 5390 98EC 8BFC FCCA C3BE 39CB 12D3

Tweets by rdicosmo