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

Tue Jan 28 15:59:18 UTC 2014

2014-01-28 Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>

> This is intended to be a summary post - this is a good discussion but I'd
> rather it didn't get too repetitive and I respect that some of my
> colleagues will continue to remain firmly convinced that open access needs
> CC-BY regardless of what I say.
>
> Many of these arguments made by these colleagues are exactly the same
> arguments that I have made as an open access advocate over the years: free
> access to everyone, minimal or no copyright restrictions, taxpayer access,
> OA is good for business as well as the public / social good. However, I
> remain firmly opposed to equating open access with the CC-BY license,
> because:
>
> 1.      The resemblance between CC-BY and the BOAI definition is
> superficial in nature. It is particularly important for open access
> advocates to be aware that CC licenses, including CC-BY, do not mean that
> works must be made available free of charge. CC-BY policy has a huge,
> potentially systemic loophole: the possibility of re-enclosure. What is
> given freely today with a CC-BY license could easily be available solely
> through sale from Elsevier or services like RightsLink down the road.
>

No evidence for this. Nearly all CC-BY works are available free of cost. CC
could clarify that re-enclosure in the digital context isn't allowed.

> 2.      Attempting to force CC-BY through policy results in further
> loopholes, for example through creative twists on licensing such as the
> CC-BY / exclusive license to publish of Elsevier and the Royal Society.
>
> 3.      There are downsides to permitting commercial re-use that could
> result in a backlash by researchers. The more that researchers equate OA
> with CC-BY, the greater the probability that the backlash will be against
> OA rather than against CC-BY. Recent concerns expressed by scholars about
> people selling works they have licensed CC-BY should be taken as a reason
> for caution. While there are many grey areas, people granting blanket
> commercial rights to their works should be aware (or made aware by
> publishers or funders requiring this license) that the most obvious
> commercial use of a copyrighted work is selling the work per se.
>

Regardless wthat people say Ms. Morrison is spreading misinformation. There
is an immense bulk of CC-BY licensed scholarly articles with authors
apparently having NO concerns with CC-BY.

In the context of commercial publishing NC is a joke because NO re-use is
possible. The hypothetical possibility that someone is selling a work
should be the reason to de facto only grant gratis OA?

>
> 4.      After ten years of use of CC-BY licenses by a number of authors
> and publishers, there is as yet no clear example illustrating such a
> compelling use of derivatives as to require all scholars to grant
> derivative rights on a blanket basis.
>

This isn't true at least for image re-use.

I am in doubt that nothing can convince Ms. Morrison.

>
> 5.      There are valid scholarly reasons for hesitating to grant
> derivative rights, such as the potential for incorrect or harmful
> derivatives. This is a good reason for tolerance, to allow scholars to
> decide whether the risks of allowing derivatives justify potential benefits.
>

A license can not manage scholarly misconduct. No evidence for harmful
derivatives is given.

>
> 6.      The UK BIS committee examined this issue and suggested that more
> research is needed on the question of licensing.
>

Is there any topoc in the scholarly world wtih NO need of further research??

>
> Conclusion: open access overlaps but does not exactly match Creative
> Commons licenses. There are pro-open-access arguments and pro-scholarship
> arguments against attempting to force CC licenses as a default for open
> access. I do not expect everyone, or even anyone, to agree with my
> perspective on this matter. What I am hoping is that as many open access
> advocates as possible will appreciate that there are diverse views on the
> topic within the OA community itself. It is possible to be an open access
> activist but opposed to attempts to force CC-BY as default for OA.
>
>
> No I cannot see that this is possible.

Klaus Graf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140128/321b1f7b/attachment-0002.html>