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

Tue Jan 28 17:57:12 UTC 2014

It would be helpful to the discussion to focus on the substantive points. Calling people who disagree with you names does not prove your point.

best,

Heather Morrison

On 2014-01-28, at 12:37 PM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com>
 wrote:

> I'm perfectly happy for Heather to enjoy her assumed role of being a voice in the wilderness. She's entitled to it.
> 
> Jan
> 
> On 28 Jan 2014, at 17:15, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
> 
>> All right, folks. I do believe we've crossed over into troll-feeding now.
>> 
>> I for one will now try to resist SIWOTI syndrome on this thread. Let's
>> just agree to let Heather have the last word, then it can all be over.
>> 
>> -- Mike.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 28 January 2014 17:08, Mr. Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I guess my summary was premature...(sigh)
>>> 
>>> On 2014-01-28, at 11:11 AM, "Mr. Puneet Kishor" <punk.kish at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Indeed. The license very clearly states that you, the licensee, "may not
>>> apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others
>>> from doing anything the license permits."
>>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_US)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Two comments:
>>> 
>>> CC would have to have the agreement of the Creative Commons community to
>>> change the licenses to prevent re-enclosure. From time to time I participate
>>> in the CC community list and have raised the question about CC and free of
>>> charge. The short answer is that there are many people in the Creative
>>> Commons community for whom freedom means freedom to put up a paywall and
>>> charge for works. Consider the difference between open source software,
>>> where the code is free for anyone to manipulate, but software creators are
>>> free to charge for the software, and open access with its "free of charge".
>>> Klaus, I very much encourage you to sign up for the CC community discussion
>>> and check in with them about this question:
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>> 
>>> The licensee "may not apply legal terms or technological measures..." refers
>>> to applying legal terms or adding TPMs to the work per se. There is nothing
>>> to stop a downstream user from putting up a paywall before you get to the
>>> work. Indeed, it would not be possible to do this, as most of us need to go
>>> through a paywall to connect to the internet (whether we or someone else is
>>> paying).  We are already seeing that people are using articles to compile
>>> books for sale - people have to pay to get the book.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps it was another case of premature summary, but you completely missed
>>> the subsequent para in my email where I wrote, "Unless all copies of the
>>> work vanish from the face of the earth except for the ones remaining in the
>>> vault of an evil publisher who then decides to charge for access to the
>>> vault, what Heather states above is not possible. And, even in the unlikely
>>> scenario I describe, once someone pays for access to the vault and then
>>> downloads the work, that work is once again free like the original."
>>> 
>>> Indeed, if I download your CC BY work, I have all the right in the world (no
>>> matter how misplaced one may think it is) to charge for that work. On the
>>> other hand, others have all the right in the world to ignore my offering and
>>> get your work directly from you or from other sources completely free if it
>>> is still available. The only reason a sane person would pay me for an
>>> otherwise freely available work is if I add something of value to that work.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Puneet.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 