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

Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Sun Dec 11 21:18:36 UTC 2011

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Thomas Kluyver <takowl at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11 December 2011 19:37, Heather Morrison <heatherm at eln.bc.ca> wrote:
>> If Springer Open becomes a wild success and eventually Springer goes full
>> CC-BY for all of their journals, then anyone can take Springer journals and
>> re-sell them. Imagine if Elsevier were to take these journals and sell
>> them, but not sharealike, then Elsevier could sell a version of Science
>> Direct that includes all of the Springer journals
> But what would be the point? If access to those (Springer) journals is
> free anyway, it does Elsevier no good to 'sell' access to them. If
> anything, it increases the impact of those journals by reminding
> researchers to look at them.
It's also worth noting that BiomedCentral have published completely Open
journals for a decade under a CC-BY licence and that PLoS are also
completely CC-BY. I know of no significant reselling of content.

There is, perhaps, a danger that major metadata sellers might resell access
to the complete literature. That's why we are also campaigning for Open
Buibliography so we don't get locked into/out_of a walled garden.

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20111211/5332597c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list