[open-science] Lack of explicit licences [was Re: OKF: What shall I say at the Open Science Summit in Berkeley]

Wed Jul 7 06:58:31 UTC 2010

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Bill Hooker <cwhooker at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1362040
>
> What's the licence? Excuse the rest of this mail if I am just blind.

For a paper about open issues in a legal framework it is surprising that
there is no explicit statement of licensing or rights in the paper or its
splash page. The only licence is
http://www.ssrn.com/dmca_notice_policy.html
which invokes the DMC Act and appears to be "if you infringe go to jail".

It is exactly this sort of lack of clarity that we have to address. It's
quite clear that Universities don't generally know/care and University
repositories are stuffed full of "burn in hell" copyright clauses. This is a
tragedy for theses and I am going to propose to OKF that we develop an Open
Thesis project.

Do I post this on okfn-discuss?

P.

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100707/8be573da/attachment.html>