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

Mon Jan 20 11:35:24 UTC 2014

May I remember

Graf, K, Thatcher, S. (2012). Point & Counterpoint: Is CC BY the Best Open
Access License?.*Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication*
1(1):eP1043.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1043

It's clear for me that NC is in the context of commercial scholarly
publishing nonsense. A copyright protected image cannot be re-used in any
commercial journal and there is some evidence that the leading OA journals
like PLoS are indeed commercial in the sense of the NC clause.

Klaus Graf

2014/1/20 Pierre-Carl Langlais <pierrecarl.langlais at gmail.com>

> Hmm… I'll try a more prosaic approach. What is the more efficient and
> clearer license for scientific productions?
>
> CC-BY-SA: the work can be republished providing the authors are quoted and
> the license remains the same — granted…
>
> CC-BY: the work can be republished providing the authors are quoted. The
> license is not viral, yet in compliance with the "no additional
> restriction" provision, the work should go somewhat viral, but that's only
> a guess, so that in fact the work remains in quantum state somewhere
> between virality and un-virality…
>
> CC-BY-NC: the work can be republished proving the authors are quoted. The
> work should not be sold. If the selling merely covers some diffusion
> expenses (printing a book, acquiring an USB key), it should perhaps be
> alright, yet we don't know for sure, so that you would feel better avoiding
> it.
>
> European public domain: the work can be republished providing the authors
> are quoted (in compliance with moral rights) and the license remains the
> same (otherwise it would fall into copyfraud) — it would require a better
> legal shelter (as public domain is always defined in a negative way) but,
> nevertheless, granted…
>
> We don't even need to speculate over the social effects of the license.
> CC-BY and CC-BY-NC are not a good solution, not on account on some negative
> effects on scientific production and diffusion, but because they are not
> clear. CC-BY-SA or even european public domain (if someday european
> countries really tackles this issue of giving it a positive definition)
> give a more efficient legal frame.
>
> PCL
>
> Le 20/01/14 09:57, Jan Velterop a écrit :
>
>  Hi Heather,
>>
>> The 'requirement' is that what one calls open access IS truly open
>> access. Any licence that covers open access works should reflect that. Of
>> the CC-licences, only CC-BY does. NC is an impediment to use scientific
>> works to their full extent, and thereby renders works under an NC licence
>> unsuitable to the label 'open access'. It may be called 'free', 'gratis',
>> etc., but calling works 'open access' when under an NC licence makes the
>> very term 'open access' ambiguous and confusing to the point of being
>> useless. I'm reaching the point where I am considering using only the terms
>> 'CC-BY-Access' or 'BOAI-compliant OA' when referring to what used to be
>> simply 'open access'.
>>
>> Of course, free, gratis, access is not in itself a 'bad' thing, certainly
>> compared with paywall-access, but is not as good as it could be if it were
>> truly BOAI-compliant OA, and not sufficient for optimum usage in science.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> On 20 Jan 2014, at 00:19, Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  hi Jan,
>>>
>>> To be clear: I am against requiring any particular license for open
>>> access works. As the UK Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) committee
>>> concluded after their recent OA policy consultation, this is an area that
>>> requires more research.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> Heather Morrison
>>>
>>>  On Jan 19, 2014, at 5:31 PM, "Jan Velterop" <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So in your scenario, Heather, CC-BY-NC secures that there won't be the
>>>> possibility of a fast lane at all. How can that be better?
>>>>
>>>> Jan Velterop
>>>>
>>>>  On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:57, Heather Morrison <
>>>>> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> hi Jan,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is useful - it's a great idea to see the license.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re ""No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or
>>>>> technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the
>>>>> license permits."
>>>>>
>>>>> Comment: this applies to the work per se. It does not apply to a
>>>>> paywall that you have to go through to get to the work. Consider that for
>>>>> most of us we go through a paywall every time we access the internet,
>>>>> whether we are paying this ourselves or an organization is paying on our
>>>>> behalf.
>>>>>
>>>>> There can be measures that do not legally restrict others from doing
>>>>> anything the license permits that are neither legal terms nor
>>>>> "technological measures that legally restrict others...". For example,
>>>>> imagine that Elsevier buys out or is bought by an Internet Service Provider
>>>>> and net neutrality is legal in country X. Elsevier could then offer a
>>>>> for-pay service for the fast lane to PLoS material, while PLoS material
>>>>> could still be accessible to anyone to use their rights under the license,
>>>>> however on the slow lane.
>>>>>
>>>>> When considering the potential impact of legal terms like CC-BY, it is
>>>>> important to consider the overall context, including existing and potential
>>>>> new business practices and other laws such as those surround net neutrality.
>>>>>
>>>>> best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Heather Morrison
>>>>>
>>>>>  On 2014-01-19, at 12:49 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On 19 Jan 2014, at 15:49, Heather Morrison <
>>>>>>> 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 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> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>> 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-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/20140120/5f32d8d4/attachment-0002.html>