I couldn't find a way to comment on the Science Code Manifesto site, or ask questions. I trust it's okay to ask about it here.

When the Manifesto made its way to the Computational Chemistry List, I had a couple of practical concerns with it.

1) How much should it cost to get access to the source code? The Free Software Foundation, which has different goals than scientific software, asserts that it is an essential freedom that you be able to charge as much as you wish. Am I free to publish a paper but charge $1 million for access to the GPLv3 licensed software? Is the curator similarly free to do so?

2) What is the curator's obligation with respect to copyright violations in the submitted software? I think of the specific case of a chemistry toolkit available under LGPLv2, using components also distributed under LGPLv2, but the main package did not include the credits as required by the subpackage license. Is it acceptable for the curator to modify the package? If the paper author is unable or unwilling to change it, then does the curator withdraw only the software, or is the paper withdrawn as well?

I am also curious to know your opinion on something which has been bugging me. Suppose I am asked to do a peer-review of a paper, which includes GPL software in the supporting materials. I of course get access to the software in order to review it. Under the terms of the GPL, this is a distribution event so I am now free to redistribute the software. While that's inappropriate as part of the peer-review process, it's not illegal. Compare that to redistributing the paper, which would be a violation of copyright law.

Is this a valid worry, or are the social conventions on not distributing peer-review materials strong enough?