[open-science] text-mining restrictions - a plea for more information

[koltzenburg at w4w.net]

yes, great, thanks,

just wondering if authors should really call such licences "agreements" if actually they are... well... coercive. 
in my understanding, anything that comes in a "take it or leave it" mode should not be called an "agreement", at least not by the user side ;-)

I should think we had better drop "agreement" an call such a brilliant overview

"Publisher licenses"

- more to the point, I guess, unless users really start working for what might properly be called an agreement (people taking different positions talk to one another, discuss, negotiate and then possibly reach a jointly agreed solution).

anyway, seems like we might me getting there one of these days,
keep up the good work :-)

cheers,
Claudia

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:02:59 -0700, Heather Piwowar wrote
> Jenny, this is very useful already!  Thank you!
> 
> Heather
> 
> --Heather Piwowar
> 
> DataONE postdoc with NESCent and Dryad
>   studying research data sharing and reuse
>   remotely from Dept of Zoology, UBC, Vancouver Canada
> http://researchremix.org
> @researchremix
> 
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jenny Molloy <jcmcoppice12 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All
> 
> Sorry, this is a little after the conversation has occured but I'm helping Peter draft the text mining paper so I spent some time over the Easter weekend looking up a few license agreements where they were available, in order to turn our 'anecdotal evidence' into real exampes. There are quite a lot of license agreements on the web (obviously without the contractual details such as subscription fee, but that's not important for us). Some are posted on the publishers site, others by institutions (well done, the Max Plank Digital Library http://www.mpdl.mpg.de/services/ezb-readme_en.htm) 
> 
> Anyhow, here is my very non-systematic collection of 10 license agreements from some some of the larger academic publishers, including the CDL/Elsevier one already mentioned (there are actually 11 entries, but 2 are the same agreement). 
> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtV3tIqIu0UZdGVMNTAtejhBUlFySGk4QWdrVHJNdkE&hl=en&authkey=CKC-_LQP
> 
> 3 don't mention data/text mining (which isn't to say there isn't an additional clause in other versions of the agreement)
> 6 explicity forbid it via various means
> 1 probably forbids it but isn't quite so explicit. 
> 
> There are lots more out there, but this is a start at least.
> 
> Jenny

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20110429/a6784915/attachment-0001.html>