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

Wed Sep 26 07:46:00 UTC 2012

That's exactly the direction that the TEI consortium adopted (see http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/access.xml): a combination of CC-BY and BSD-2-clauses.
I guess we could get some institutions follow the trend if we were to go along with a strong statement.
Laurent

Le 26 sept. 2012 à 09:42, Mike Taylor a écrit :

> Strong agreement here. There is enormous value in organisations using
> CC BY, not only because it's a good licence but because everyone who
> cares about such issues already knows what it means. Instant
> recognition is very valuable. No-one wants to read pages of legalese
> only to emerge on the other side thinking, "Oh, so it's just like CC
> BY, then".
> 
> -- Mike.
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 September 2012 08:08, cameronneylon.net <cn at cameronneylon.net> wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access

Laurent Romary
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
laurent.romary at inria.fr