[Open-access] [open-science] Open Science Anthology published

[Marcus D. Hanwell]

Hi,

I would like to second Emanuil's concerns, and am in a similar
situation. I have done a lot of work in open source, including many
GPL communities. The open source community abandoned NC, ND etc very
early on as they do not fit in any open landscape - commercial
activity can be so ambiguous and you are restricting certain groups
from taking part. Copyleft/SA make requirements on everything, not
just the licensed work, leading to discussions/analysis/time spent
figuring out compatibility etc.

I favor permissive licenses now for software, and hope to see the same
for scientific works and data. I really hope that open access can be
defined simply as CC-BY or equally permissive, without having to
figure out you meant the CC-BY-SA-NC-ND version. I am pleased to see
Creative Commons went ahead and made it clear that NC, ND etc are not
free cultural work approved too.

These concerns are real, and I sincerely hope that the open access
term can be reserved for works with no restriction on where/how they
are used, just like open source is. I disagree that the licensing
questions are very different, and in fact feel there are many
commonalities in the debate. I totally agree that software licenses
should be used for software, and CC licenses are better suited to
publishing, but access and reuse are important commonalities shared by
both communities.

Marcus

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Emanuil Tolev <emanuil at cottagelabs.com> wrote:
> I've got nothing to add to Mark's description of Cottage Labs. I'm a
> software developer, not a currently active scholar. I'd rather that all
> scholars and the public could access each other's work. I'd also like to see
> good business and not-for-profit initiatives building on top of that work
> and making it even easier to access, relate, analyse and derive value from
> (and drive research forward). I want all the text, all the data and all the
> metadata open (as per the Open Definition ideally) so that this kind of
> innovation can develop, coming both from scholars themselves and others who
> wish to help scholarship.
>
> The GPL is a great example. The GPL is copyleft, i.e. -SA. Turned out,
> though, that companies can't always share all their code for competitive
> reasons.
> "Amazing! Sharing is forever encouraged and *required*!", said those who
> liked GPL.
> "Err..", said the software developer who received tens of requests for dual
> licensing from companies wanting to use his GPL code in great commercial
> applications that he would have allowed without asking. They couldn't
> open-source their core products though.
> "I just wanted to share my code and I was told this is how you do open
> source by a friend. I don't really want to deal with all this admin work.
> Rejecting them all is bad too, I like some of them a lot. Maybe I need to
> change my license."
>
> HypotheticalSoftwareProject changelog:
> Most recent version:
> - Now dual-licensed under MIT ( http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT ) and GPL
>
> "Hm, we don't like this. You should have just left them in the mud if they
> wouldn't share their enhancements to the code." - said supporters of the
> GPL.
> "Well, actually they did share some *other* code and other stuff, because
> they felt compelled to and it has so many benefits, like attracting talented
> developers. Also it got really bad really quickly - I never realised other
> open source projects would be prevented from using my code and now I'm
> really angry!"
> - "Huh? How come?", asked the GPL supporters.
> - "Well if they've picked MIT to be commercially friendly or because they
> didn't care about forcing sharing, they can't use the GPL. It's copyleft,
> remember? They have to release a GPL version of their code if they use any
> of mine! I never meant to force other developers to pick a license for their
> work!"
> - "Well, they should make this little bit of effort and join the true
> sharing community and make sure their work is forever shareable.", retorted
> GPL supporters.
> - "I'm angry now I'm even spending time on this issue. I wanted to code and
> share my code. And discuss this with others. Not discuss licenses. I am no
> longer participating in this discussion."
>
> HypotheticalSoftwareProject changelog:
> Most recent version:
> - No longer licensed under the GPL. If you want to use the GPL code for some
> odd reason, go back to the version which had it. Beware, no support of any
> kind will be offered for old versions. Use the latest version to report any
> problems or bugs.
>
> And so, except in some exceptional cases, nowadays the majority of open
> source code is not GPL, but one of the other ones listed here under Popular
> Licenses: http://opensource.org/licenses , all created to serve different
> needs, but none containing blanket restrictions like -NC and -SA. (There are
> still quite a few GPL projects.)
>
> Obviously papers are not code and one wouldn't necessarily mix & match text
> from papers to produce new papers. However, the lessons learned from trying
> to apply downstream restrictions still hold true. (And besides, who am I to
> say there isn't a truly good and innovative idea to be had in mix & matching
> scholarly papers.) Newly minted software developers like me usually know
> this: Do. not. restrict. usage. of. your. open. source. code. without
> exceedingly good narrow reasons forced by a very specific situation on you.
> You will end up hurting causes and projects you like, and will not stop
> those who only wish to take and not contribute back.
>
> I feel that there's such a big push for CC-BY because people are concerned
> about fragmenting the scholarly sector in superficial legal ways. The cracks
> take a lot of time and frustration to close, and we'll end up consolidating
> anyway, because the benefits of consolidation so greatly outweigh the
> negatives in practice. If we don't flock towards one (any one) license or a
> small group, look what happens: http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
> . This situation is frustrating - how can I tell if any 2 or 3 licenses are
> compatible? What if I'm given the task of combining materials licensed under
> 2 or 3 of them? I'm not a lawyer, I don't know! So I just won't perform the
> task.
> Or if it's critical, I will combine the materials and ignore the licensing.
> I have no other choice. I've no time to deal with this!
>
> I'd really rather that this situation does not repeat from the software
> sector into the scholarly sector.
>
> I'm definitely against forcing a license on people. However, I don't
> consider it necessary to pick a different license to what everybody else has
> picked if that serves my needs too. CC-BY seems to serve scholars' needs
> (I'm not one, hence "seems").
>
> Greetings,
> Emanuil
>
>
> On 20 January 2014 00:24, Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for the clarification, Mark, this is most helpful. It strikes me
>> that you are talking about coding and open source. This is very different
>> from open access to scholarly journal articles and monographs, and the
>> questions around copyright and licensing are very different as well.
>>
>> Wouldn't the GNU public license be more appropriate here than any of the
>> CC licenses?
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>>
>>
>> On Jan 19, 2014, at 6:45 PM, "Mark MacGillivray" <mark at cottagelabs.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> In response to the question of conflict of interest:
>>
>> I am Mark MacGillivray, an academic at the University of Edinburgh,
>> currently completing my PhD entitled Studies in open scholarship. I have
>> shared information in relation to my studies on these lists previously. It
>> is in this capacity that I engage in these lists, as I have done so both
>> prior to my PhD course but in other studies, and prior to the existence of
>> Cottage Labs.
>>
>> I am also a Founder and Senior partner of Cottage Labs LLP, where Emanuil
>> is an associate. Cottage Labs itself has no interest in this matter - it is
>> an LLP, set up solely as an administrative entity specifically for the
>> purpose of enabling people who want to trade their skills to those that wish
>> to purchase them. Cottage Labs has no capability to express interests nor to
>> generate a profit for itself, as a limited liability partnership in the UK
>> is unable to do so - income minus costs equals payment for those involved,
>> and that is all. However, we are still a commercial entity and what we do is
>> a commercial enterprise, and we earn a living from it.
>>
>> Cottage Labs develops open source software for a range of people, most
>> commonly academic or academic-related people and institutions. We get paid
>> for our skills and time, which we openly negotiate on every project we work
>> for, and the output of our work is made freely available to be used by
>> anyone at no extra cost, for whatever they want.
>>
>> However, despite making the output of our work freely available, and
>> demonstrating and documenting how to use it, and helping people install and
>> set up services using that material, we have found that there are a large
>> number of people and organisations who simply do not have the technical
>> capability to be able to run their own services. Hence, we have found that
>> even though they are freely available to do so themselves, they often want
>> to hire us to do more than just develop software. For example, they want us
>> to run services.
>>
>> So as far as Cottage Labs has an interest in these discussions, it is the
>> as yet hypothetical interest of myself and others to do just this. I would
>> like to be able to use my skills to help scholarship advance, but to do so I
>> need to get paid or I cannot stay alive. The same is true of most academics.
>> Therefore I would like to build the services that people need - e.g. that
>> support the values they desire - and run them at a price that is reasonable.
>>
>> So let's say I build a service that distributes content at a reasonable
>> price - and by reasonable I mean whatever it costs us to run it, including
>> paying ourselves (and I would be happy to make that public too). If the
>> service is valuable people will pay me for it, and there is nothing wrong
>> with that. If I try to increase the price too much, people are absolutely
>> free to take all the content, and replicate the service - they could even
>> use the code I wrote if they wish, because it is freely available too.
>> Therefore it is in my interests to offer a reasonable trade. I am holding
>> myself to account.
>>
>> That is what I want to be able to do, but I cannot run the thing for free.
>> So can I personally profit from running the service (pay my bills, buy food,
>> etc) if I am using NC or even SA content or tech? Yes, but not without at
>> least getting into an argument about it. However if the content or tech is
>> unrestricted and usable for anything, I have no concern and neither do
>> consumers of my service because they are not locked in to it, nor to the
>> content, nor to any prior decision about how it should be used.
>>
>> Here is an interesting point I am freely willing to admit: in every
>> project I have been involved in to date, the only thing that licensing
>> demands have done for the project is to increase its complexity. This means
>> that managing the additional licensing requirements asked of me does nothing
>> to improve the quality of the software nor that of the service that the
>> software provides to the target audience - no scholar has ever said "please
>> can you make sure I cannot access X". However, I do make more money because
>> increased complexity equates to more requirements and more work, and in the
>> case of the hypothetical service described above it would justify a higher
>> cost. So, once again, the manufacture of scarcity results in increased
>> profit.
>>
>> By taking the conflict of interest that is the restrictions on usability
>> of scholarly (or any) content out of the equation altogether, what we have
>> left is a complete freedom to act on our willingness to work together with
>> people who share our goals, and to collaborate and trade based on the skills
>> we have to offer rather than the products we can stockpile.
>>
>> In my personal opinion, restriction simply places demands on other people
>> despite having no idea what it is they may want to do, and no idea of how it
>> may benefit or hinder any particular goal. It is a fearful approach to what
>> would otherwise be an inclusive and joyous activity. I would not even argue
>> for BY. I think that the application of copyright and licensing is
>> pollution, and so we should minimise how much of it we spread about in the
>> first place.
>>
>> If an academic of the future were to find something of interest to them,
>> would you prefer that they pay close attention to the licensing conditions
>> of said item when deciding whether to prioritise it for scholarship and
>> their public good, or that they make their evaluation based on the qualities
>> of the item itself? I would hope that they treat the licensing as nothing
>> more than dirt to be swept off the cover.
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Heather Morrison
>> <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> In scholarship, it is important to state your background and any
>>> potential conflicts of interest. I am a professional academic and librarian
>>> and my interest in this area is ensuring that scholarly works are free to
>>> prioritize scholarship and the public good.
>>>
>>> It would be helpful to the discussion for Emanuil Tolev and Mark
>>> MacGillivray to explain the interests of cottagelabs.com in this matter.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> Heather Morrison
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2014-01-19, at 2:06 PM, Emanuil Tolev wrote:
>>>
>>> > I guess what it boils down to (for me) is that what matters is how
>>> > people perceive CC-BY. If they think it "makes my article free to read (and
>>> > to text mine) [and open access]", then that's what will happen - eventually
>>> > - regardless of how somebody else interprets the license to suit a perhaps
>>> > ageing business model. They'll just think RightsLink is plain wrong to do
>>> > what they do.
>>> >
>>> > It is of no significance that RightsLink can use the OA articles to
>>> > profit, as the resulting ill will will force the creation of more ...
>>> > accurate alternatives.
>>> >
>>> > Say a medical start-up mines all of the medical papers they can get
>>> > their hands on in order to obtain information that aids new research, and
>>> > then sells that information back to medical departments? I'm sure opinion
>>> > will be divided - but some will definitely support the buying of added value
>>> > and convenience if it can truly aid their research. Added value /
>>> > convenience or saved time in exchange for money is the underlying premise of
>>> > a lot of business after all, and it can even be argued that it's one of the
>>> > best sustainability models and innovation drivers. Pulling in enough money
>>> > to support a team to work on such an obviously non-trivial project is
>>> > important if it's to be kept alive and upgraded significantly.
>>> > However, it's my understanding that CC-BY-NC would prevent this kind of
>>> > scenario. And as I said, not all scholars would be against this kind of
>>> > scenario. But they aren't going to think about it when picking CC-BY-NC
>>> > because "I don't want RightsLink to sell my article".
>>> >
>>> > Downstream usage with no strings attached seems like the obvious way to
>>> > go - we don't know what the downstream usage WILL be. So, we guess, we try
>>> > to exclude a use case we don't like, and we create a big legal and
>>> > conceptual mess. Useless. We're making your research and ALL research less
>>> > useful every time we include a special condition in the licensing. (The "all
>>> > research" reason is that we make aggregators' lives very difficult, like
>>> > those hypothetical medical text mining people, or even cases as simple as
>>> > the DOAJ. So we're unintentionally hurting causes and use cases most
>>> > scholars wouldn't have even heard of.)
>>> >
>>> > There's an entirely separate issue that's usually conflated with the
>>> > published work itself - the metadata about the work. Where is it located,
>>> > what's its license, what's its identifier, etc. You can collect all that
>>> > info and none of it would fall under the work's license itself. (Naturally
>>> > this metadata is quite hard to get in a consistent way if you're not the
>>> > originating publisher and copyright has been claimed over it, even though
>>> > the underlying works are CC-BY or some other open license.)
>>> >
>>> > Again, even if we somehow created this data from scratch (scraping and
>>> > so on), then how would we publish it? CC-BY - no problems for downstream
>>> > applications, they can use us together with other data sources and slap an
>>> > attribution link somewhere sensible. CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-SA .. not so much. If
>>> > downstream users wanted to combine our data with some CC-BY data, could
>>> > they? What if they republished the combined dataset? What does the sum of
>>> > CC-BY + CC-BY-NC datasets produce, legally?
>>> > DOAJ kind of illustrates this in fact, since their data is under
>>> > CC-BY-SA, which means that if I were to combine their dataset with other
>>> > data, I'd have to release the result under CC-BY-SA, which may hurt MY
>>> > downstream data consumers in ways I can't imagine.
>>> >
>>> > So yes, CC-BY comes with no strings attached for downstream usage
>>> > because that hurts the flow of information and makes people deal with
>>> > unintended (sometimes to the point of being silly) scenarios when they
>>> > should be focussing on running their business or otherwise enhancing
>>> > society.
>>> >
>>> > Additionally, attaching restrictions to data use is practically useless
>>> > unless you can back your copyright infringement claims up. People serious
>>> > about their causes / businesses will just do what they have to to get their
>>> > experimental software / data flows / whatever off the ground and they won't
>>> > look at your license a single time if it's physically possible to obtain the
>>> > data. Then they may start caring about licensing, though probably not.
>>> > People just take what they need when it's published, and we should recognise
>>> > this and expect it instead of shun it with -NC clauses (and in some cases
>>> > even -SA).
>>> >
>>> > The reason we can't go and download all the papers from publishers'
>>> > websites like Aaron Swartz did is not because their incredible restrictive
>>> > website ToS says so, it's because they have enough cash to back up their
>>> > ToS. And maybe (depending on personal values) because whoever does this
>>> > would be concerned they'd hurt real people (they do work at publishing
>>> > companies ..).
>>> >
>>> > So attaching restrictions on downstream use just:
>>> > 1. kills little innovative side projects people think up, because they
>>> > actually paid attention to the licensing and it forbade them from using the
>>> > data, and they were afraid enough of copyright law / potential bad
>>> > reputation not to go ahead
>>> > 2. kills big serious innovative projects like companies, because older
>>> > more established ones use the restrictions they put on downstream usage of
>>> > their data against them
>>> >
>>> > #2 is sometimes acceptable, we can't tell businesses not to compete or
>>> > give all their data away! But I'll certainly think more of a business which
>>> > publishes at least some good useful data with no strings attached, or even
>>> > everything sans business intelligence over the data (& tries to compete on
>>> > other vectors, not exclusive data access).
>>> >
>>> > Greetings,
>>> > Emanuil
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 19 January 2014 17:43, Heather Morrison
>>> > <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
>>> > To be clear, I am not arguing for the benefits of NC licenses, rather
>>> > against the perspective that CC-BY should be a default for open access,
>>> > enforced through coercion of open access publishers and as a part of open
>>> > access policy. I see dangers to open access itself through CC-BY, in
>>> > addition to these arguments that this focus on licensing ignores steps which
>>> > would be much more effective in achieving the kind of re-use many CC-BY
>>> > advocates argue for (attending to formats and metadata standards, for
>>> > example).
>>> >
>>> > My work to date on the mapping of open access and creative commons
>>> > licenses is linked to from this post:
>>> >
>>> > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html
>>> >
>>> > In brief, while CC is an important initiative and the licenses are very
>>> > useful, open access and CC licenses simply do not map. An entry point into
>>> > this argument that all proponents of CC-BY as default should pay attention
>>> > to: there is nothing in any of the CC licenses that obligates either
>>> > licensor or licensee to make materials free of charge. It is true that you
>>> > cannot add DRM to a work downstream to enforce downstream property rights,
>>> > but you can put up a paywall before the person gets to the work.
>>> >
>>> > If OA advocates do not wish to see their works up for sale under
>>> > RightsLink or other toll access venues that may be developed in the future,
>>> > it is wise to take into account that CC-BY pre-authorizes this kind of use.
>>> >
>>> > best,
>>> >
>>> > Heather Morrison
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 2014-01-19, at 11:58 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Heather argues:
>>> > >> In summary, the view that open access can be usefully narrowly
>>> > >> defined through legal terms is the view of a subset of the open
>>> > >> access community.
>>> > >
>>> > > That's technically true. But that subset includes (among many, many
>>> > > others) BioMed Central, the Public Library of Science, Hindawi, eLIFE
>>> > > and PeerJ. In other words, all the major players in the open-access
>>> > > publishing world.
>>> > >
>>> > > Heather's view that NC clauses can be useful lingers on in dark
>>> > > corners, but no-one should be fooled that a preference for NC is
>>> > > mainstream anywhere outside of the legacy barrier-based publishers
>>> > > that are being dragged reluctantly into the open-access light and
>>> > > fighting every aspect of openness along the way our of sheer habit
>>> > > and
>>> > > bloody-mindedness.
>>> > >
>>> > > -- Mike.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 19 January 2014 15:49, Heather Morrison
>>> > > <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
>>> > >> There are different perspectives in whether open access must include
>>> > >> blanket
>>> > >> pre-approval of commercial re-use rights downstream. Of the fully
>>> > >> open
>>> > >> access journals listed in DOAJ, for example, many do not use CC
>>> > >> licenses at
>>> > >> all and many that do use NC. Scholars who do use CC-BY licenses
>>> > >> sometimes
>>> > >> complain when they see people selling their work downstream. I argue
>>> > >> for a
>>> > >> broader understanding of open access modelled after Suber's short
>>> > >> definition, along the lines of "open access works are digital,
>>> > >> online, free
>>> > >> of charge to the reader and free of most copyright and licensing
>>> > >> restrictions". It is premature and a distraction to focus on
>>> > >> particular
>>> > >> licenses or licensing elements. Meaningful technical manipulation
>>> > >> and re-use
>>> > >> is best pursued thorough technical approaches, such as best
>>> > >> practices for
>>> > >> formats and consistent metadata. What has made the development and
>>> > >> rapid
>>> > >> spread of transit applications is a consistent standard for common
>>> > >> standard-related information such as bus number, bus stop,
>>> > >> scheduling. If
>>> > >> every city follows a pattern and releases the data openly then apps
>>> > >> can
>>> > >> develop and spread quickly. A focus on licensing would not achieve
>>> > >> this
>>> > >> effect.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Analysis of this example may be useful to highlight why more thought
>>> > >> is
>>> > >> needed on the question of licensing. Many would agree (including me,
>>> > >> for
>>> > >> this example), that prohibiting commercial use would stifle
>>> > >> development and
>>> > >> be largely counter-productive. On the other hand, with no
>>> > >> restrictions on
>>> > >> re-use, one future possibility is a scenario where everyone has to
>>> > >> pay for
>>> > >> transit information that is now free. That is, if people use
>>> > >> commercial apps
>>> > >> and not government services, governments may not continue to develop
>>> > >> public
>>> > >> services. This may be just fine if the commercial sector provides
>>> > >> awesome
>>> > >> service, for free, on an ongoing basis. However, one of the
>>> > >> potential
>>> > >> pitfalls of open licensing we should be paying more attention to is
>>> > >> that "no
>>> > >> downstream restrictions" includes "no downstream restrictions on
>>> > >> paywalls".
>>> > >>
>>> > >> In summary, the view that open access can be usefully narrowly
>>> > >> defined
>>> > >> through legal terms is the view of a subset of the open access
>>> > >> community.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Best,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Heather Morrison
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Jan 19, 2014, at 7:36 AM, "Emanuil Tolev"
>>> > >> <emanuil at cottagelabs.com>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Discrimination based on field of endeavour I thought was the
>>> > >> problem.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Even if some copyright exceptions allow use in situations in which
>>> > >> the
>>> > >> license didn't *intend* to allow such use, the license still
>>> > >> discriminates
>>> > >> based on the type of activity ("field of endeavour") - doesn't allow
>>> > >> commercial use.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The legal ability to use something for commercial reasons and being
>>> > >> told not
>>> > >> to by the license are two separate things, though obviously related.
>>> > >> Being
>>> > >> told not to by the license makes it a non-open license according to
>>> > >> OKD.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> This isn't to say non-commercial licenses are evil in all
>>> > >> situations, I
>>> > >> can't pass that judgement. But if you use a non-commercial clause,
>>> > >> you
>>> > >> certainly can't call the thing "open access" - it's accessible to
>>> > >> some part
>>> > >> of the population, but it is not "open". Like this anthology (which
>>> > >> by the
>>> > >> way looks like it's quite nice).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Greetings,
>>> > >> Emanuil
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Sunday, 19 January 2014, Pal Lykkja <lykkja at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> What is the problem with CC-NC if it will be possible to reuse like
>>> > >>> TDM
>>> > >>> throught copyright exceptions that EU are working for?
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Pål Lykkja
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Peter Murray-Rust
>>> > >>> <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
>>> > >>> wrote:
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> Sounds useful.
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> One comment. CC-NC is not Open Access under BOAI- and OKD-
>>> > >>>> definitions.
>>> > >>>> I'd urge you to make the book CC-BY. If there are reasons that you
>>> > >>>> can't do
>>> > >>>> this, please drop the term "Open Access" and call it
>>> > >>>> "free-of-charge". CC-NC
>>> > >>>> forbids many forms of redistribution and re-use
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Ulrich Herb
>>> > >>>> <u.herb at scinoptica.com>
>>> > >>>> wrote:
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> Dear lists,
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> perhaps this might be of interest: Yesterday an anthology on Open
>>> > >>>>> Science was published: "Opening Science - The Evolving Guide on
>>> > >>>>> How the
>>> > >>>>> Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly
>>> > >>>>> Publishing". It
>>> > >>>>> has been edited by Sönke Bartling from the German Cancer Research
>>> > >>>>> Center in
>>> > >>>>> Heidelberg and  Sascha Friesike, researcher at the Alexander von
>>> > >>>>> Humboldt
>>> > >>>>> Institute in Berlin. The anthology knows four manifestations: it
>>> > >>>>> is
>>> > >>>>> available as a printed book,  as an Open Access e-Book or PDF
>>> > >>>>> collection
>>> > >>>>> under a CC BY-NC license, and as an editable living document via
>>> > >>>>> Github. for
>>> > >>>>> further information please visit:
>>> > >>>>> http://www.openingscience.org/get-the-book/
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> Best regards
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> Ulrich Herb
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> --
>>> > >>>>> scinoptica science consulting and publishing consulting
>>> > >>>>> POB 10 13 13
>>> > >>>>> D-66013 Saarbrücken
>>> > >>>>> Germany
>>> > >>>>> http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/en/start.php
>>> > >>>>> +49-(0)157 30306851
>>> > >>>>> http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> ---
>>> > >>>>> Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast!
>>> > >>>>> Antivirus
>>> > >>>>> Schutz ist aktiv.
>>> > >>>>> http://www.avast.com
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>>>> open-access mailing list
>>> > >>>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>> > >>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>> > >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/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
>>> > >>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>> > >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> open-science mailing list
>>> > >> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> > >> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> open-access mailing list
>>> > >> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>> > >> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Dr. Heather Morrison
>>> > Assistant Professor
>>> > École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
>>> > University of Ottawa
>>> >
>>> > http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
>>> > Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > open-science mailing list
>>> > open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Heather Morrison
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
>>> University of Ottawa
>>>
>>> http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
>>> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-access mailing list
>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>