[Open-access] Letter to publishers - URGENT

Mon Mar 5 14:33:36 UTC 2012

One minor suggestion...

Second para suggest replace "and publish the output as CC0" with "and publish the resulting data output under a Creative Commons Zero waiver"

Cheers

Cameron

On 5 Mar 2012, at 14:14, Douglas Carnall wrote:

> I humbly offer the following text as a possible revision in the light
> of this morning's discussion. I hope it is a helpful contribution to
> the drafting process.
> 
> Briefly, I have substituted "fundamental" for absolute,  replaced
> "arbitrarily large amounts" with "without limitation", and "whenever
> they wish" by "entire current" (which means the old footnote 7 becomes
> the new note 4), and inserted a footnote [2] on being nice with the
> server (thus renumbering successive footnotes).
> 
> I am somewhat aghast at my own temerity in so-doing, and will not be
> offended in the slightest should anyone decide to hit the revert
> button. The new introductory paragraph is entirely my invention and
> could and should be improved by others more knowledgeable than I.
> 
> Regards to all,
> 
> D.
> 
> ***
> Dear [NamedPersonAtOrganisationX],
> 
> As you know, progress in networked computing currently offers
> unparalleled opportunities for progress in many areas through the use
> of textmining algorithms on the existing scholarly literature.
> [[Required: 1 sentence on potential benefit for humanity. . . [Such
> techniques could [???speed drug discovery, save scholarly time. . .
> thus saving lives and generating economic benefits . . . add here] ]]
> We are writing to several major scholarly publishers to ascertain
> their current practice in this domain, and plan to collate the replies
> we receive as part of our submission to the Hargreaves enquiry.
> 
> We assert that subscribers [1] have a fundamental right to use
> machines [2] to extract facts [3] from the entire current scholarly
> literature [4] in all forms [5] without limitation [6] and publish the
> output as CC0 [7]. This right extends to creating CC0 indexes [8] and
> summaries [9]. Publishers have a responsibility to make this process
> simple and reliable for all subscribers [10].
> 
> We would appreciate a clear statement of your support for this
> important scholarly principle, and for specific details of how
> [OrganisationName] is furthering scientific progress in this
> endeavour.
> 
> You are also cordially invited to join in the discussion of these
> issues on the mailing lists and blogs of the okfn. [[provide URLs
> here]]
> 
> Thank-you for your response.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> [PMR on behalf of . . . ?]
> 
> Notes:
> 1. A subscription to a paper artefact allows the reader to extract
> facts, create indexes and makes summaries without requiring
> permission. We are asking for this right for legitimate subscribers to
> electronic journals and other scholarly artifacts.
> 2. Subject to best network practice in the prevention of server
> overload by intensive automated requests, i.e. in conformance to any
> reasonable API service limit.
> 3. Facts are not copyright.
> 4. Scholars should be able to extract information as soon as it
> appears and to delve backwards as far as they wish. They should not be
> dependent on publishers providing dumps, though this may be a useful
> additional option.
> 5. Scholarship expresses facts [at least] as text, numbers, tables,
> diagrams, images, spoken discourse and video. Machines can reliably
> extract facts from all of these
> 6. Limitations on volume are unacceptable, just as they are for human
> extracters.
> 7. CC0 (Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication) means that the
> information can be freely used with no restrictions (See
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
> 8. There is a traditional right to index the literature. Many indexes
> are factual, others involve judgment/classification which can now be
> provided by machines.
> 9. There is a traditional right to create summaries of works and publish them.
> 10. No publisher should install robots to block legitimate use by
> subscribers. No publisher should insert clauses in contracts which
> militate against the subscribers' rights. No publisher should require
> individuals to ask for permissions or justify their actions.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Douglas Carnall
> dougie.carnall at gmail.com
> 
> http://cabinetbeezer.info
> 
> Traduction vers l'anglais
> Rédaction de textes en anglais
> Coaching pour présentations en anglais
> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access