[Paula Martinez Lavanchy]

Dear FAIR4RS WG,
TU Delft has recently published its Research Software Policy and guidelines. I am sharing in case this is of interest for the discussions within the group 🙂
As TU Delft’s rewards and recognition system is changing, sharing software in a compliant manner enhances the contribution of its researchers to science and offers them recognition that extends beyond research papers. Therefore, TU Delft has drafted and recently published the TU Delft Research Software Policy and new Guidelines set out a simplified, streamlined process to help researcher to manage and share research software.
TUD Research Software Policy: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4629662
TU Delft Guidelines on Research Software: Licensing, Registration and Commercialisation: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4629635
Best wishes,
Paula
Paula Martinez Lavanchy, PhD
Research Data Officer
4TU.ResearchData | TU Delft Library
(availability Monday – Friday)
e ***@***.***
[cid:44AE9783-2812-459D-B175-EE07C259783B] @paulammartinez2
w data.4tu/nl/info/en | [cid:44AE9783-2812-459D-B175-EE07C259783B] @4TUResearchData
w tudelft.nl/library/ | [cid:44AE9783-2812-459D-B175-EE07C259783B] @tudelftlibrary
[cid:***@***.***]
_______________________________________________
Subscribe to the 4TU.ResearchData newsletter for the latest on RDM, FAIR data & Open Science news &events!

Discussion

[Paula Andrea Martinez]

Thank you Paula,
These two are great resources to share. I was personally looking for guides
on Software Citation. If anyone else has something to share I will
appreciate it.
with kind regards,
-Paula
Paula Andrea Martinez
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 16:56, paml via FAIR for Research Software (FAIR4RS)
WG wrote:

[Roberto Di Cosmo]

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

[Author]

Replies