[open-science] Fwd: [okfn-discuss] "Open Access" publications under CC-NC licences

Thu Dec 8 01:20:48 UTC 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).
-Carl

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 (
>
>
> http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/29/scientists-should-never-use-cc-nc-this-explains-why/
>
> http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/12/04/more-on-how-commercial-publishers-use-non-commercial-licensing-funders-are-you-really-getting-your-money%E2%80%99s-worth-many-are-not/
> ,
> http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/12/06/acceptance-of-cc-nc-has-sold-readers-and-authors-seriously-short/
> ) and responded to comments. I have summarised this in
>
> http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/12/07/%E2%80%9Copen-access%E2%80%9D-and-non-commercial-licences-summary/
>
> Ross Mounce has summarised this as:
> *this mess has caused irreparable damage to the re-usability of the
> literature
> 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
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>

-- 
Carl Boettiger
UC Davis
http://www.carlboettiger.info/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20111207/cff37c98/attachment-0001.html>