[open-science] Fwd: [okfn-discuss] "Open Access" publications under CC-NC licences
cboettig at gmail.com
Thu Dec 8 01:20:48 GMT 2011
Jenny, Peter, others,
Thank you for sharing. I've enjoyed and appreciated the links but admit
that understanding the details can be confusing.
So let me see if I got this right:
Fiction: "Non-commerical license sounds great! It means no one can make a
free lunch from my sweat."
Fact: NC means the journal (by holding the copyright) retains the right to *
sell* your work to pharmaceuticals, teachers, researchers interested in
text-mining, (rather than those groups having *free* use).
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:56 PM
> Subject: [okfn-discuss] "Open Access" publications under CC-NC licences
> To: okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> There has been considerable recent discussion about CC-NC licences being
> used for "Open Access" papers by scholarly publishers. I have written a few
> blog posts (
> ) and responded to comments. I have summarised this in
> Ross Mounce has summarised this as:
> *this mess has caused irreparable damage to the re-usability of the
> with which I completely agree. I think it's so serious that it should not
> be discussed on my blog but brought here.
> It took me by surprise that authorPays "Open Access" seems to be almost
> completely CC-NC. (The main open Access publishers such as PLoSONE and BMC
> have complete OKD-compliance by using CC-BY). CC-NC places so many
> restrictions on re-use that it is almost useless in science.
> I believe that the OKFN should take this issue very seriously and with
> great urgency. We know that multi-author organizations which start using
> CC-NC find it impossible to chnage later without approaching every author
> and with scholpub this is out of the question, so the longer this goes on
> the worse the problem.
> I believe that OKFN should put together a group which draws together
> resource material which makes the case against NC and then promotoes this
> case to publishers and funders. Any aproaches to funders or publishers
> could be done through IsItOpenData.
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science