[Open-access] [open-science] Open Science Anthology published
pierrecarl.langlais at gmail.com
Fri Jan 24 12:19:46 UTC 2014
Hmm… This specification of CC-BY seems to create some kind of viral
mechanism : « No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms
or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing
anything the license permits. » Not adding any restrictions beyond what
the license permits = cannot republish under stricter terms (which
certainly includes copyright).
I agree this disposition is not as clear as what SA states. That's
actually what made CC-BY a "weak" license, as we don't know for sure
what are the terms of reuse — the same problem goes with CC-NC…
Le 24/01/14 13:11, Mike Taylor a écrit :
> On 23 January 2014 14:39, Pierre-Carl Langlais
> <pierrecarl.langlais at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm still a little annoyed to see that the debate focuses heavily
>> on CC-BY v. CC-NC. Both of theses licenses are quite unclear and do not
>> create an effective legal security for reuse. CC-BY sounds as an uncomplete
>> viral license.
> Just as a point of information (and taking no position for the moment
> on which of the various licences is to be preferred): CC By is not a
> viral licence. That term has a specific meaning --see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license -- that downstream works
> must use the same licence: something that CC By explicitly does not
> require. CC By-SA is viral, and so is the GNU GPL.
> For more, see
> -- Mike.
More information about the open-access