[Open-access] [open-science] how open is it
mike at indexdata.com
Wed Oct 10 21:32:47 UTC 2012
As a side-note, you would probably get more fruitful discussion if
your (otherwise excellent) blog allowed comments. As it is, you can
hardly be surprised if your pronouncements seem to vanish into the
On 10 October 2012 21:37, Heather Morrison <hgmorris at sfu.ca> wrote:
> My position - one that has been carefully thought through, based on many years of open access advocacy and knowledge of scholarly publishing through my work as a librarian - is that CC-BY is a problematic license for open access. Of the CC licenses, the strongest for OA is CC-BY-NC-SA since it protects OA downstream, however I am not convinced that it is appropriate to recommend any CC license as a default for OA.
> This is a very brief statement of my arguments, worked out in more detail in my draft thesis (see the chapters on open access and the conclusions), which can be downloaded from here:
> This is not the main focus of my dissertation, and not all of my arguments can be found here (e.g. in the conclusions my point is that the equation of OA with CC-BY is an illustration of the dangers of what I call irrational rationalization).
> Substantive comments, particularly from people who take the time to read my work, would be most helpful. "The NC issue is an emotional one" is not a substantive comment.
> This discussion is happening on lists that I don't participate in - if someone could forward this message to lists that I'll miss, that would be most appreciated.
> Heather Morrison
> On 2012-10-10, at 1:26 PM, Mike Taylor wrote:
>> Yes, I had that experience, too. My guess is that most people go
>> through an NC phase before having a moment on enlightenment. I must
>> blog about this properly some time.
>> -- Mike.
>> On 10 October 2012 21:25, Björn Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mike Taylor wrote:
>>>> THANK you, Cameron.
>>> Second that. I read some of the critiques of CC-BY and
>>> didn't find them persuasive - in fact I didn't understand
>>> the arguments, really. Your arguments did make a lot of
>>> sense to me.
>>> The NC issue is an emotional one for those who simply don't
>>> want to see 'their' work commercialized without the
>>> profit-making organization paying anything for it. I can
>>> relate to that and I think I can remember ticking off 'NC'
>>> at least once somewhere. I find that very understandable -
>>> until one realizes that everybody already paid their share
>>> for this work via their taxes and don't really need to be
>>> paying again. Took me a while...
>>> Björn Brembs
>>> Universität Regensburg
More information about the open-access