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

[Everton Zanella Alvarenga]

2011/12/10 Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>:

> BY does indeed not guarantee downstream Open Access. BY-SA is better
> than BY for this, as it guarantees downstream access and return of value
> to upstream contributors. I personally would rather OA and OER were BY-SA.

I tend to agree, but sometimes I am in doubt if using only BY is not
good as well. I've seen a website using a photo of a scientist I've
taken and uploaded on Wikimedia Commons with a BY-SA license, but the
derivatedderivative work was not BY-SA, but a strange thing were they
write "copyleft" and they don't allow other news agency to use it

http://www.redebrasilatual.com.br/temas/saude/2010/07/principal-premio-do-governo-americano-vai-para-brasileiro

I simply ignored. Maybe I should explain them some concepts, instead
of forcing them to use a SA license. Here in Brazil it is common
people associate any Creative Commons license as if it's a free
cultural work / open content.

> But adding NC to BY-SA in order to create barriers to access breaks open
> access both by definition and in practice. We cannot claim that Open
> Access is protected by *preventing* open access.
>
> So NC is certainly not better than BY or SA for guaranteeing downstream
> access. And those OA advocates promoting it are wrong to do so.

Because of this discussion here I've proposed a coffee in Brazil with
my wikimedian friends and invited people from an open educational
resources community to discuss about permission and remix cultures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permission_culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix_culture

and the odds of using a NC and, mainly, ND restrictions. Such concepts
seem not well understood. We still don't have Portuguese article on
Wikipedia about them and the coffee could be good to we do it
collaboratively.

Tom