Two years ago, Roger Peng discussed in his blog the ramifications of requiring reproducibility for the first producers of research objects, but not for reusers. He then proposes
What I think a good reproducibility policy should have is a type of "viral" clause. For example, the GNU General Public License (GPL) is an open source software license that requires, among other things, that anyone who writes their own software, but links to or integrates software covered under the GPL, must publish their software under the GPL too. This "viral" requirement ensures that people cannot make use of the efforts of the open source community without also giving back to that community.
I agree that having such a perpetuating policy element is very desirable, but would try to establish community norms around that, rather than using copyright or related legal constructs. My thoughts here are influenced by the common practice of framing plagiarism primarily or even exclusively as a copyright issue. But even if all the plagiarized sources were in the public domain, it would still be plagiarism, which in scientific contexts means ignoring the community norm that all statements sourced from elsewhere should indicate those sources, as well as direct quotes.
So my first hunch at perpetuating reproducibility would be to get community organs like funders, publishers, institutions or learned societies to express support for the idea that reproducibility should trigger reproducibility. How best to phrase the core elements of such statements?
This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)