The quote is from 1736. You can see it on the front page of the book “The method of fluxions and infinite series” by Newton, “translated from the author’s Latin original not yet made publick” (nobody is perfect, we know now where this secrecy led in the dispute with Leibniz over the invention of the differential calculus).
That should be the goal of any open science research output.
What we have at the end of 2017?
- Sci-hub. Pros: not corporate. It does not matter where you output your article, as long as it becomes available to any learner. Cons: only old style articles, not more. So not a full solution.
- ArXiv. Pros: simple, proved to be reliable long term. Cons: only articles.
- Zenodo. Pros: not corporate, lots of space for present needs. Cons: not playable.
- Github. Pros: good for publicly and visibly share and discuss over articles and programs. Cons: corporate, not reliable in the long term.
- Git in general. Pros: excellent tool.
- Blockchain. Pros: excellent tool.
I have not added anything about BOAI inspired Open Access because it is something from the past. It was just a trick to delay the demise of legacy publishing style, it was done over the heads of researchers, basically a deal between publishers and academic managers, for them to be able to siphon research $ and stiffle the true open access movement.
Conclusion: at the moment there are only timid and partial proposals for open science as “a complete institution for the use of learners”. Open science is not a new idea. Open science is the natural way to do science.
There is only one way to do it: share. Let’s do it!