[okfn-discuss] [open-science] "Open Access" publications under CC-NC licences

[Peter Murray-Rust]

There is momentum building round this issue. We need to decide which list
to use (the issue is wider than science as it affects all scholpub but in
practice I suspect that almost all APC funding is in science). Probably for
a day it's worth crossposting to open-science open-discuss - then converge.
We should have an Etherpad and either wiki or public Googledocs. I would
prefer Wiki I think but only marginally.

Here are the fields that come to mind immediately:

PUBLISHER
Name of publisher
Fields covered (science, A+H, economics, everything, etc.)
URL for publisher
Person/office to contact (this can be hard and may require phone calls)
Licence for APC publication (null = no APC)
charge (range) for APC
URL Information about OA author rights/procedure
URL pointing to licence statement
URL announcing rights for READERS
Branding of APC OA (e.g. "Open Choice")
NIH compatibility?
Wellcome compatibility?

Some publishers will generate complex discussion - Ross Mounce has already
found an example of Open Access behind a paywall. We should probably have a
separate page / doc for each pubklisher.
(As I write this I think that a Wiki looks increasingly the right tool)

FUNDER
Name of funder
Fields covered (science, A+H, economics, everything, etc.)
URL for funder
Person/office to contact (this can be hard and may require phone calls)
Licence for APC publication
URL Rubric about OA
[more - I haven't thought this through]

P.


On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Egon Willighagen <
> egon.willighagen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org>
>> wrote:
>> > PMR suggested generating a resource pack for publishers and funders on
>> the
>> > use of the NC clause. We can couple this with Is It Open Data? requests
>> > which will converge nicely with the need for clarification of publisher
>> > positions with regard to text and data mining in response to the
>> Hargreaves
>> > Report.
>>
>> Open Science is a combination of data and methods. Or, the full ODOSOS
>> standard. NCOA violates basic freedoms outlined in Open Standards and
>> Open Source, and does therefore violate Open Science.
>>
>> If you make a pack like this, I suggest to include references to the
>> Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) which clearly disallow NC
>> clauses. That means that any material with a NC clause cannot be
>> redistributed at all on many platforms, and the DFSG can serve as a
>> best practices people have adopted for many years now. I just wrote
>> this up in my blog too [0].
>>
>
> Many thanks Egon.  We owe a great debt to the Open Source movement.
> Without their clarity of thought we would have little clear guidance.
>
>>
>> Egon
>>
>> 0.
>> http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/2011/12/open-science-and-non-commercial.html
>>
>> --
>> Dr E.L. Willighagen
>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>> Institutet för miljömedicin
>> Karolinska Institutet (http://ki.se/imm)
>> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
>> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
>> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>



-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20111208/34bc2095/attachment.html>