
Getting a scientific prize for open-source software - gorpovitch
http://gael-varoquaux.info/programming/getting-a-big-scientific-prize-for-open-source-software.html
======
lonelappde
OP is right-on as to why this is a big deal in academia.

I want to see it spread beyond computer programming libraries into areas where
sharing is harder, like open source scientific equipment and fully
reproducible methods in chemistry experiments.

~~~
chrisseaton
> OP is right-on as to why this is a big deal in academia.

The ACM (academic computer science group) has awarded prizes to these open
source systems projects amongst others recently:

\- Wireshark

\- Jupyter

\- GCC

\- Mach

\- Coq

\- LLVM

\- Eclipse

\- make

\- Java

\- Tcl/Tk

The linked article is written like the academy never works on or recognises
open source software or implementation work, or using open licences is
unusual. That's not true.

~~~
hobofan
OP was talking about academia in general, and not just about CS-academia,
which is of course a lot more sensitive to open source software.

In traditional (= non-CS) academia, proprietary software is still very much
the norm, and as long as institutes get a free license for academic usage they
also don't seem to care about open source too much. I don't know how much
precedent there is, but such recognition from traditional academia still seems
to be pretty rare and worthy of highlighting.

------
fghtr
If you think that all software written on public money should be public,
consider this petition: [https://publiccode.eu](https://publiccode.eu)

~~~
OrgNet
I think the budget used to make this software possible should also be
public... yet we have a black budget

------
bpesquet
Some historical context on scikit-learn:

[https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/154357/1/paper.pdf](https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/154357/1/paper.pdf)
(2013)

[https://amueller.github.io/papers/wo_the_machine_varoquaux.p...](https://amueller.github.io/papers/wo_the_machine_varoquaux.pdf)
(2015)

