repost:contributed code - copyright: clarification needed

GRASS GRASS user
1

I never saw this come back through, so I am reposting it.
My apologies if it was already received.

From grass Tue Jan 31 10:20:22 1995

Sender: grass-lists-owner@moon.cecer.army.mil.
Reply-To: grassu-list@moon.cecer.army.mil.
Precedence: Bulk
To: grassu-list@max.cecer.army.mil
Subject: contributed code - copyright: clarification needed
Content-Length: 1727
X-Lines: 41

Forgive the intrusion of a scientific newby but,
I get the feeling that one person is talking about
"contributed code" (src contrib)- while another speaks
of "alpha programs" (src alpha). As I am just now preparing to
submit my first publication and maybe others need
clarification too... how would one cite a GRASS program. I
cited GRASS and the paper behind some of the theory
used. However, I did NOT as of yet include direct
references to the spline papers...(I used s.surf.tps
to interpolate our DEM). I thought that
citing GRASS and quoting the program used was enough for
the purposes of an article. I can understand wanting
more direct credit for contributed code, but what about
the main and alpha programs?

Keith M. Mitchell
Dept. Of Ag Engineeering
University of Illinois

Although the specific comments that initiated the citation dialog
on the list may have been in error, the issue showed itself as important
to a significant number of GRASS users. A number of good suggestions
were made to enhance the convenience and accuracy of providing citations
in the future. The suggestions have been noted and will serve to improve
overall GRASS community operation. Thanks to all who offered ideas.

Nancy Taaffe USACERL

|Just a short supporting comment for Bill: at least in archaeology it's
|good and common practice to say what kind of software you have been using
|for your work. This should not always have to be in the form of a
|quotation (you wouldn't want everyone to read the GRASS manuals, for
|instance), but in the case of contributed code it seems no more than
|reasonable to name the authors, either by quotation or by acknowledgement.
|
|Philip Verhagen
|--

2

"GRASS 4.0" (grass@holstein.age.uiuc.edu) writes on 8 Feb 95:

references to the spline papers...(I used s.surf.tps
to interpolate our DEM). I thought that
citing GRASS and quoting the program used was enough for

I would suggest:

  Helena Mitasova, Lubos Mitas, Irina Kosinovsky, and
  Dave Gerdes, 1993. s.surf.tps-Software for
  Thin Plate Spline Interpolation and Topographic Analysis.
  In: GRASS 4.1 Users Manual, Michael Shapiro, Jim
  Westervelt, D. Gerdes, Marjorie Larson, and Kenneth R. Brownfield
  (eds). US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory:
  Champaign, Illinois.

the purposes of an article. I can understand wanting
more direct credit for contributed code, but what about
the main and alpha programs?

Here's a judgement call IMO. If we're talking about d.vect or g.list,
I'd say just cite the users manual. However, for things like
r.watershed, s.surf.tps, v.autocorr, I would strongly urge giving the
original author credit. To be safe, I'd suggest citing original
authors for anything that you feel is unique about GRASS or any
module/algorithm that plays a critical role in your research.

I have submitted to CERL changes to the GRASS parser (standard command
line interface) that will append author information when usage
instructions are normally given (e.g., 'r.watershed help' would list
Charles E., his organizational affiliation, and maybe even an email
address if he wanted). Look for it in future versions.

--Darrell
James Darrell McCauley, PhD http://soils.ecn.purdue.edu/~mccauley/
Dept of Agricultural Engineering mccauley@ecn.purdue.edu
Purdue University tel: 317.494.9772 fax: 317.496.1115