{
  "id": 7939,
  "title": "Scilab license",
  "url": "/competitions/decoding-the-human-brain/discussion/7939",
  "author_name": "",
  "post_date": "2014-04-30T13:57:51.260Z",
  "votes": null,
  "comment_count": 1,
  "views": 655,
  "content": "<p>Is the Scilab license considered open source for the purposes of this competition? It is subject to a CeCILL license.</p>",
  "messages": [
    {
      "id": "43363",
      "postDate": "04/30/2014 13:57:51",
      "content": "<p>Is the Scilab license considered open source for the purposes of this competition? It is subject to a CeCILL license.</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "",
      "votes": null
    },
    {
      "id": "43368",
      "postDate": "04/30/2014 15:43:16",
      "content": "<p>Hi,</p>\n<p>I am pretty sure&nbsp;that the choice of a popular Open Source license that Kaggle requires for the winners of the prizes of the competition is only for the code that generates the submission. So not for the interpreter/environment/libraries that are necessary to run that code. As far as I understand, the underlying idea behind this is to be able to reproduce/rerun/check the code, which is the spirit of science. So proprietary languages/libraries may be&nbsp;less welcome because they make this activity more difficult. But of course there could&nbsp;be exceptions: for example Matlab (proprietary) seems a bit popular among Kagglers and among people crunching data in neuroscience.</p>\n<p>In any case, <a href=\"http://www.scilab.org/scilab/license\">the CeCILL license is an OSI approved license</a>,&nbsp;since v2.1. So Scilab itself is Open Source, even though its license is not so &quot;<a href=\"http://opensource.org/licenses\">popular</a>&quot; ;)</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "",
      "votes": null
    }
  ],
  "comments": [
    {
      "id": 43368,
      "author_name": "emanuele",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "04/30/2014 15:43:16",
      "content": "<p>Hi,</p>\n<p>I am pretty sure&nbsp;that the choice of a popular Open Source license that Kaggle requires for the winners of the prizes of the competition is only for the code that generates the submission. So not for the interpreter/environment/libraries that are necessary to run that code. As far as I understand, the underlying idea behind this is to be able to reproduce/rerun/check the code, which is the spirit of science. So proprietary languages/libraries may be&nbsp;less welcome because they make this activity more difficult. But of course there could&nbsp;be exceptions: for example Matlab (proprietary) seems a bit popular among Kagglers and among people crunching data in neuroscience.</p>\n<p>In any case, <a href=\"http://www.scilab.org/scilab/license\">the CeCILL license is an OSI approved license</a>,&nbsp;since v2.1. So Scilab itself is Open Source, even though its license is not so &quot;<a href=\"http://opensource.org/licenses\">popular</a>&quot; ;)</p>",
      "votes": null,
      "replies": []
    }
  ],
  "raw_markdown_by_id": {
    "43363": "",
    "43368": ""
  },
  "source": "meta"
}