Below text are the e-mails as input to continue the discussion on the forum (oldest e-mail at the bottom, latest on the top)
Good Idea Tom!
I wonder how to differenciate between projects for development or implementation of the model. Because normally the implementing projects are used to continue development/gather data for the model…
P.S.: going on with this discussion in the forum??
von Tom Brown
Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Dezember 2017 10:30
Hi Tim, Berit,
I think a good start is for each model to collect the grant number and funding body for each project which funded the development of the model.
This information is usually listed at the end of papers or reports.
I think some tax payers would already be surprised how many projects have been funded with no transparency and openness requirements.
In a second step, we look for information about the size of the grants.
Usually this information is not reported, but could be sought using freedom of information requests to research funding bodies.
None of this is Germany-specific btw.
On 08/12/17 10:20, Berit Mueller wrote:
as there is actually the call from BMWI about model comparison, they
gather a lot of models – that would be a good basis to start from J
von *Tröndle Tim
Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Dezember 2017 10:14
PMPC sounds like something we could help with. Perhaps in cooperation with the PTJ attempt to document all energy models in Germany, we can identify the non-free models (not currently listed on the openmod wiki) and estimate how much public money has flowed into the development of each one?
I like the idea. How would you push this forward? It could be the aim
of a breakout group in the next workshop, but that’s still a while from now.
On 7 Dec 2017, at 20:47, Tom Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote: Thanks Robbie, Ludwig and colleagues from FSFE for engaging on this, awesome! I can think of one major example of free software in the industrial energy sector (apologies, all in German): https://www.openkonsequenz.de/ It's a project of some of the major distribution network operators in Germany, and many other high profile partners: https://www.openkonsequenz.de/das-konsortium To stop vendor lock-in for network-related software (including SCADA systems etc), among other disadvantages of closed software: https://www.openkonsequenz.de/anwender/philosophie-hinter-ok PMPC sounds like something we could help with. Perhaps in cooperation with the PTJ attempt to document all energy models in Germany, we can identify the non-free models (not currently listed on the openmod wiki) and estimate how much public money has flowed into the development of each one? Best, Tom On 07/12/17 18:45, Robbie Morrison wrote: Hello all Today Ludwig Hülk and I met Matthias Kirschner and Polina Malaja from the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE). Some points, loosely grouped: *General* * the FSFE is quite focused on helping companies of all sizes shift to free software * corporate legal departments are often the last to come round * well-resolved and open component interfaces (including APIs) have much to offer manufacturers and can allow them to switch suppliers more easily * companies which regularly use free software include the automotive sector, the telecoms sector, and organizations with large in-house IT systems * we could not think of one example of free software use within the energy sector, systems modeling aside (now that is telling, can anyone /cite/ an example?) *Open science* * one FSFE agenda is to improve the profile of free software within the scope of open science: for instance, the H2020 open science policy hardly mentions code, but all software, no matter how trivial, is a necessary part of scientific reproducibility * the openmod perspective is quite the opposite: as we see it, the issues surrounding open code are mostly resolved and it is open data that remains problematic *Legal matters* Project location * the hosting of projects on neutral terrain is advisable, particularly if several institutes are involved * one approach is to set up a legal entity for the project (perhaps a German /eingetragener Verein/ (eV) or incorporated society) and use contributor license agreements (CLA) to assign rights * [my comment: notwithstanding, there are downsides to this approach, including substantially reduced appeal for casual contributors, increased administrative overhead, more formalized procedures, and the need to canvas and define legal purposes at the outset] Employer rights * your employer normally holds copyright to your open source contributions made in the course of your job * [my comment: in Germany but not in the United Kingdom, this include PhD candidates] * under German labor law (/Arbeitsrecht/), this provision can extend to projects that you donate to in your spare time when the subject matter is sufficiently similar to your work description * it is therefore recommended that you get *written clearance* (by printed agreement or by email) from your employer to allow you to contribute to open projects in you spare time and under your own name * such clearance can be done at the time of hire (usually preferable) or at any time later in the course of your employment * [my comment: my dated understanding of English law is that none of this is necessary, although if you do undercut your employer's business in your spare time, then they can take civil action against you] *Common interests* * people should review and, if they agree, support the FSFE public money public code <https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/PMPC> (PMPC) campaign maybe Ludwig has something to add, that’s all, Robbie