[open-science] SPARC author addendum uses CC-NC licence and now all hybrid publishers have followed

Paola Di Maio paola.dimaio at gmail.com
Sun Dec 11 18:27:24 UTC 2011


I am interested in understanding more of some of the things you say below

 A large argument for Open Access is that authors receive no payment for
> their work. This is universal in scientific journals.

what about publishers and shareholders of publishing houses?
is anyone else, in your interpretation of OA, entitled to benefit
economically from OA publications (and where is this stated)

> Data mining is a fine thing to advance science. Allowing commercial
> applications means that authors and publishers that have given away their
> own work as OA, may not be able to afford the value-added version created
> through data mining. If data mining is the leap ahead that I think this is,
> this means that the less affluent scholars, libraries and publishers end up
> relatively further behind. That is, one step ahead in gaining the
> advantages of OA per se, and two steps behind if they cannot afford the
> value-add built on their work. For this reason, I strongly recommend that
> OA publishers in the third world use CC-NC licenses.

I am glad you think so. When I had the chance, I advised a developing
country who started a CC system exactly that.
As Heather says, the economic situation for most creatives, intellectuals
and independent thinkers, is very similar to that of a developing economy.
Most Creatives (and independent thinkers who produce original works) live
in economic uncertainty, if not in poverty.

> Please make sure that your read the various critiques of NC very
> carefully. "Commercial" includes any act of exchanging goods - like
> allowing adverts on the site.

Among the work to be done is probably developing suitable language and
concepts, by commercial exploitation for the purpose of author's rights it
is intended 'that generates any kind of income or economic wealth', which
in a fair system should be equally distributed amongst all
creators and distributors, and not solely benefit those who
own and control the means of production

Almost all education is commercial.

Important point! One more reason to insist on the issue

> My analysis is that SA will primarily act to reduce the size of the
> downstream activity, not to return wealth-producing goods and services to
> the author.

possibly, but in the case they do, the license should protect all
rights holders

> Derivatives do not return wealth.

Please explain more. There is a whole industry that exploits derivative
work, afaik.

> As for non-SA derivatives the licence allows anyone to exploit the
> derivatives - there is no monopoly for the original author.

As I tried to explain, only those who own and control markets
have the capability and interest to exploit any intellectual property work,
including derivatives

Lots more to be understood and discussed

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20111211/041d14cc/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list