Halchenko and Hanke provide a concise overview of issues involved in ensuring openness of software developed within the neuroimaging research community. They outline 4 key considerations that should be made to ensure openness.

Overall, I found the manuscript read well and the issues and considerations outlined by the authors are timely and of interest to all within the neuroimaging community. However, in the end I found the manuscript too technical/legal to be readily usable by readers. After reading the manuscript I had a somewhat better understanding of issues involved in making software open, but the whole process of doing so remained vague. I would encourage the authors to add a section at the end of the manuscript where they outline a case study. This case study should ideally describe the different processes involved. For instance. Phd student x writes some code for specific analyses. It makes use of some fsl/spm libraries. How should he/she go about in making sure this specific analysis is accessible for generations to come?

The same comment applies to the introductory paragraphs (and especially the last section of the background). While the overall outline is ok, the text remains technical and somewhat superficial. The authors should add a bit more detail and practical examples, especially examples that stay close to the imaging community for whom this paper is written.

Is the manuscript geared towards software, data or both? In the intro the authors seem to point towards both. The first three considerations are geared towards software while the last one focuses on data. This should be clarified to make it more consistent.

The abstract should already introduce the key considerations.

Keep up the good work! Level of interest An article of importance in its field Quality of written English Acceptable Declaration of competing interests I declare that I have no competing interests.

Authors' response to reviewers: http://www.gigasciencejournal.com/imedia/3902698761779378_comment.pdf