In my field, for both teaching and research, there is significant computer code in the form of high-level scripting languages. Popular choices include, but are definitely not limited to, MATLAB, Python, and R. Even very specific, advanced software has a scripting option which allows you to explore a complex space through basically, a text box of commands instead of the slow process of manual point and click. Scripting is pervasive. The vast majority of figures in published research and teaching materials were created with scripting or, at the very least, touched by a script.
One version of extreme openness in my own practice is sharing or openly distributing scripts. The script provides the end user a map of your thinking, your process flow, and your thoughts about presentation. It allows them to recreate, from scratch, whatever figure you’ve created, and modify it.
If you’re serious about sharing code and interested in communicating updates you might host it on GitHub or some other online code repository with version control. I’ve never felt that any of the many scripts I’ve written were sufficiently “valuable” to warrant submission to an online repository. Most of the time, I’ve emailed or posted on class websites.
I spent some time looking into Creative Commons license, GNU Free Document License (GFDL) and GNU General Public License (GNU GPL = GPL). While GPL is the natural choice for scripts that generate figures, it’s a bit clunky to distribute the resulting figures under GFDL. I then found out that the majority of source code and figures on Wikipedia are distributed under the CC license. Before his class I thought GNU was the mechanism to use. Now its pretty clear that CC, especially for my content related to engineering teaching, is best served by CC.
If I ever get sufficiently organized to make my content widely available on the web, I think I would do so with CC0 indicating that everything is free to use, no attribution required, no restrictions. Once this type of engineering teaching content is on the web, the cat really is out of the bag and I see no point in fighting the tide in trying to control distribution and use. Moreover, I do agree with the claim that knowledge should be considered a common good and be accessible as openly as possible.
