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

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga
<everton137 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

It is common for people to think copyright just means attribution, or
doesn't apply on the net --
http://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/ is a fun recent
article. I'd love to see studies on how much of a difference notice of
a public license (or a particular public license) makes to the
uninformed, but right now some people ignoring or misinterpreting
public licenses is a weak rationale for not using whichever public
license makes the most sense for people/communities/projects that are
informed.

I encourage you to explain the requirements of SA to
redebrasilatual.com.br and that merely stating "copyleft" does not
fulfill them (though it'd be darn interesting if it did). Education
and enforcement aren't mutually exclusive.

Regarding the perception that any CC license is a free cultural work /
open content, CC just kicked off discussion of the eventual version
4.0 of its licenses. One thing to discuss is whether and how to
increase the differentiation among the CC licenses (possibly as far as
not calling some of them "CC" licenses). I encourage folks on this
list to participate in the discussion, see
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial

>> 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.

Not on Portuguese Wikipedia, but nearby (and free :))
http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC/Pt

Mike