[Open-access] how open is it

Tue Sep 25 18:59:44 UTC 2012

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:54 PM, cameronneylon.net <cn at cameronneylon.net> wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2012, at 19:03, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>>  * "Generous reuse & remixing rights (CC-BY license)" - The allusion
>> to CC-BY is helpful, but it would also be good if this box explicitly
>> mentioned OpenDefinition.org as a standard for fully open licenses -
>> e.g. for cases where there may be bespoke or custom licenses.
>
> Without wishing to re-open old wounds, the OpenDefinition isn't really appropriate in this context as it isn't strong enough as a definition for interoperability of bespoke licences. We're adopting the BOAI original definition alongside the recommendations of BOAI10 here that CC-BY is best practice (for journal *articles*...not really referring strongly to data here) ie share-alike is not "open enough" in this domain.

Point very much taken Cameron. In which case - what about
"OpenDefinition compliant 'attribution style' licensing" which
shouldn't cause interoperability issues?

Or perhaps it isn't worth broadening from CC-BY (as it might have been
a few years ago) as people are much more likely to use CC-BY than to
roll their own, which of course should be encouraged.

J.

> But feel free to comment!
>
> Cheers
>
> Cameron
>
>> J.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A very important announcement I think
>>>>
>>>> judge for yourself
>>>>
>>>> http://www.arl.org/sparc/media/HowOpenIsIt.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>> YES. It's about time something like this happened - SPARC has been quiet and
>>> I look to them for some guidance. I haven't read the booklet, but comment on
>>> the abstract
>>>
>>>
>>> • Move the conversation from “Is It Open Access?” to “How Open Is It?”
>>> • Clarify the definition of OA
>>> • Standardize terminology
>>> • Illustrate a continuum of “more open” versus “less open”
>>> • Enable people to compare and contrast publications and policies
>>> • Broaden the understanding of OA to a wider audience
>>>
>>> These are all critical. Until recently there was nowhere they could be
>>> discussed without the discussion being destroyed.
>>>
>>> But now we have OKF open-access !!
>>>
>>> Let's offer this organ to the world and let's finally try to get a decent
>>> discussion going.
>>>
>>> P.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> TOM
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-access mailing list
>>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>>> University of Cambridge
>>> CB2 1EW, UK
>>> +44-1223-763069
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-access mailing list
>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Gray
>>
>> Head of Community
>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>> http://www.okfn.org
>>
>> http://twitter.com/jwyg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>

-- 
Jonathan Gray

Head of Community
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg