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

Pierre-Carl Langlais pierrecarl.langlais at gmail.com
Sun Jan 19 18:20:40 UTC 2014


If so, I do not quite understand the difference between CC-BY and 
CC-BY-SA. The "no additional restrictions" clause sounds quite similar 
to "share alike": forbidding republication under stricter terms is, so 
far, equivalent to keeping the same license.

I'm quite convinced that NC is a problematic license, that prevents a 
lot of fair and positive uses. Selling the content is  clearly not a 
problem, if only to be able to cover the expenses of diffusion beyond 
the web (printed books, USB keys and so forth).

Yet, avoiding a viral mechanism creates, imho, more problems than it 
solves. It deprives the open access community of a strong incentive: if 
you want to use it, you have to left it open. This is an efficient way, 
yet not coercitive to encourage institutions to become less 

Besides the paradox developed by Heather meets one of my main concerns: 
open access publication could be enclosed once more thanks to the use of 
a non-viral license and a general reliance to commercial service. 
Wikipedia has globally avoided this worrying issue. While the commercial 
use of the encyclopedia is allowed it has not entailed any kind of 
extensive exploitation, thanks to the SA clause. Commercial services 
cannot profit from something that can be reproduced for free. They have 
to recreate an artificial paywall to perpetuate the value.


Le 19/01/14 18:49, Jan Velterop a écrit :
> On 19 Jan 2014, at 15:49, Heather Morrison 
> <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca <mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
> [snip]
>> 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 ignore.
>   * 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.
>> Best,
>> Heather Morrison
>> On Jan 19, 2014, at 7:36 AM, "Emanuil Tolev" <emanuil at cottagelabs.com 
>> <mailto: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 
>>> <mailto: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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>>>     '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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>>>         '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 <tel:%2B49-%280%29157%2030306851>
>>>             http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica
>>>             <http://twitter.com/#%21/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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>>>             'open-access at lists.okfn.org');>
>>>             https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>>             Unsubscribe:
>>>             https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>>             <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 <tel:%2B44-1223-763069>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         open-access mailing list
>>>         open-access at lists.okfn.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>>>         '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 <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science 
>>> <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140119/214c409c/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the open-access mailing list