[Open-access] [open-science] Open Science Anthology published
mark at cottagelabs.com
Sun Jan 19 18:12:40 UTC 2014
Somebody charging for access to a freely available unrestricted product is
not charging for that product, nor even for access to that product - they
are charging for the convenience of not having to bother finding the freely
available unrestricted version yourself. If you want that convenience more
than you value open access, then add restrictions.
If you value open access more, then don't add restrictions. That way, we
can balance provision of a convenient service with the value of open access
- because the provided service will not be valuable if it does not provide
the values the consumer desires.
If the provided services do not provide the desired value, and if the
products themselves are unrestricted, then service provision competitors
will be free to offer an alternative that does provide the values desired
by the consumer. If the products themselves are restricted, then this is
Scarcity drives prices up. That is the reason to manufacture scarcity into
Is the purpose of scholarly production to increase profit, or to
disseminate scholarship? License accordingly.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2014, at 15:49, Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.cawrote:
> 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".
> I don't think it does. From the CC-BY licence:
> - *"No additional restrictions* — You may not apply legal terms or technological
> measures <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/#> that legally
> restrict others from doing anything the license permits."
> - A paywall that everybody can just walk around is no more than an
> invitation to make a payment, a donation. Which a potential user can
> - NC is a control mechanism. It has no place in a knowledge
> environment that is publicly funded for the benefit of society at large.
> - Jan Velterop
> 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.
> Heather Morrison
> On Jan 19, 2014, at 7:36 AM, "Emanuil Tolev" <emanuil at cottagelabs.com>
> 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
> 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).
> 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:
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Ulrich Herb
>>>> scinoptica science consulting and publishing consulting
>>>> POB 10 13 13
>>>> D-66013 Saarbrücken
>>>> +49-(0)157 30306851
>>>> Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus
>>>> Schutz ist aktiv.
>>>> open-access mailing list
>>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>>> 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
>>> open-access mailing list
>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-access