Open sourcing nanotechnology research and development: issues and opportunities

Abstract

The prominent role of software in nanotechnology research and development suggests that open source development methods might offer advantages in improving reliability, performance and accessibility. Open source approaches have shown new opportunities for voluntary cooperation to create and improve complex software. Suitable software licences could be used to promote access, compatibility and sharing of improvements. Many companies currently associated with nanotechnology produce materials, equipment and research and development services, all of which could support open source business models; however, no company yet emphasizes an open source strategy. Some molecular modelling software is already open source or public domain. Software for molecular engineering constitutes an important opportunity for open sourcing, especially if systems architectures encouraging collaboration can be further developed. Analysis suggests that the net impact of open sourcing would be to enhance safety. Initiatives for open sourcing of molecular nanotechnology could be strengthened by coalition building, and appropriate strategies for open source licensing of copyrights and patents.Prepared for the Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, Bethesda, MD, USA, 3-5 November 2000.

Introduction to Open-Source Hardware for Science

“…Free and Open-Source Hardware good. Due to this tremendous success of FOSS development, the concept has spread to areas such as education [13,14], appropriate technology for sustainable development (called open-source appropriate technology) [15][16][17][18], science [19], nanotechnology [20][21][22] and medicine [23,24]. Both academic and nonacademic scientists are accustomed to this line of thinking as both historical knowledge sharing and the Internet enabled new era of networked science have demonstrated the enormous power of working together [25][26][27].…”

Open Licensing—Advanced Sharing

“…Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD)) are more tolerant of losing the "freedom" of the code. Table 3.1 [13] shows the major differences between the three classes of open-source software licenses. In the case of unrestrictive licenses, the line between open and closed software licenses is very close, but distinct.…”

“…The TAPR organization is an international amateur radio organization that has developed the TAPR OHL. 13 The TAPR OHL provides a framework for licenses for physical artifacts that is synonymous with the more established treatment of opensource software [15]. Unfortunately, licensing for hardware is complicated by the fact that the established legal concepts that are well suited for software (such as copyright and copyleft) are not as easily applied to hardware products and the documentation used to create them, although as we will see below this approach is used on Thingiverse 14 , an open repository of digital designs.…”

Overcoming technical constraints for obtaining sustainable development with open source appropriate technology

“…Table 2: Open Documentation licenses [40] Licensing is not just restricted to open source code though. Open source licensing has been discussed in the field of medicine [42] as well as nanotechnology [43]. Also, a license for open source hardware has been proposed [44].…”