consider the license to use
josephholler opened this issue · 2 comments
See note in the references at the end of the reproduction template. The ReScience article template is licensed under GNU General Public License Version 3, available at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html , so technically if we build off of that, we have to license all derived works the same way.
That has significant implications, e.g. if anyone wanted to use this for a reproduction study, they'd have to fight with most journals over the copyright and licensing of the derived paper. It stakes out a strong "copyleft" position about the academic publishing business model. If the goal is to broadly diffuse r&r practices in HEGS, then I think copyleft licensing is not helpful. MIT License or creative commons with attribution (but not a commercial restriction) will be more flexible.
Did we decide that this doesn't ultimately matter that much because the compendium portions of any research project should still be published openly, e.g. on OSF? It doesn't preclude researchers formatting a final manuscript for publication in a copyright / closed journal.
so keep the license the copyleft GPL variety: nothing from this template gets closed off?
closing this: we've changed this all enough that citing sources should be enough.