[Open-access] [open-science] how open is it

Wed Sep 26 07:08:23 UTC 2012

My personal view, built on the idea that the key issue is interoperability, is that we should just require CC-BY as the Gold Standard. Much simpler and much less risk of unexpected problems arising due to license incompatibilities downstream. It always bothers me that people *want* a bespoke license. What does this achieve? And what is the motivation? 

So I think working towards a very strong statement of best practice for research/science is valuable and it seems that there is some movement towards CC-BY/ccZero/BSD for content, data and code respectively (code is the least worked out and has the least agreement as yet) as a standard.

Cheers

Cameron

>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science