[open-humanities] Statement on Open Access from History Journal editors

Tue Dec 11 11:38:50 UTC 2012

This is indeed disappointing.

A team of people at the Open Knowledge Foundation are currently drafting
the Open Humanities Principles which I hope to circulate to this list and
organise a call for in the new year. Hopefully that will be an opportunity
to galvanise support for an alternative perspective.

All the best,
Sam

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Andrea Zanni <aubreymcfato at gmail.com>wrote:

> The plagiarism is a very odd critic, people don't get that a CC license
> protects their moral rights as well as (if not better) than copyright.
> Another concept that is difficult to grasp is that scholars don't write
> for money, but for "reputation":
> it is a completely different system, that should be managed as a commons.
> They are just scared about the remote eventuality that someone will get
> rich selling their articles,
> when they in the first place cannot....
> (I find this "proprietary mindset" very human and very sad)
>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM, John Levin <john at anterotesis.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> The editors of a number of history journals have issued a statement on
>> open access:
>> http://www.history.ac.uk/news/**2012-12-10/statement-position-**
>> relation-open-access<http://www.history.ac.uk/news/2012-12-10/statement-position-relation-open-access>
>> It's very disappointing, and very odd as well. The kicker is the fourth
>> point:
>>
>> 4. The licence that we will offer for publication in EITHER green OR gold
>> will be a CCBY NC ND (creative commons non-commercial non-derivative)
>> licence only; that is, it will not allow commercial reuse, or tweaking or
>> reuse of parts of an article (text mining). The government has specified
>> that ‘gold’ access is to be given on a CCBY licence, the most permissive
>> form of creative commons licence that there is. This however means that
>> commercial re-use, plagiarism, and republication of an author’s work will
>> be possible, subject to the author being ‘credited’ (but it is not clear in
>> what way they would be credited). We believe that this is a serious
>> infringement of intellectual property rights and we do not want our authors
>> to have to sign away their rights in order to publish with us.
>>
>> John
>>
>> --
>> John Levin
>> http://www.anterotesis.com
>> http://twitter.com/anterotesis
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> open-humanities mailing list
>> open-humanities at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**listinfo/open-humanities<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-humanities>
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**options/open-humanities<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-humanities>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://aubreymcfato.wordpress.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-humanities mailing list
> open-humanities at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-humanities
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-humanities
>
>

-- 
Sam Leon
Community Coordinator
Open Knowledge Foundation
http://okfn.org/
Skype: samedleon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-humanities/attachments/20121211/fffd74c4/attachment-0001.html>