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

Heather Morrison heatherm at eln.bc.ca
Sun Dec 11 22:14:32 UTC 2011

Two new points:

Harvard OA policy specifies "but not for a profit". This kind of suggests that Harvard faculty have not agreed to give away their work for commercial purposes, doesn't it?

SPARC author's rights addendum: this is only needed for toll access publishers; there would never be any reason to use this with a publisher that is okay with CC-BY. So if SPARC made this NC, that makes perfect sense. If it were changed to allow for commercial use, why would the publishers with whom this is necessary agree to this? I think this could largely defeat the purpose of having an addendum.

CC, NC, and scholarly blogs - an emerging format that we need to think about, and would be impacted if CC were to drop NC. Someone please correct me if I am wrong: I assume that if my blog license were changed to CC-BY, then someone else could set up a mirror site, turn on Adsense, and keep the revenue for themselves. To me, this would be offensive, take away a source of potential revenue I might actually need someday, and quite possibly decrease my own blog stats - a measure that some of us might wish to use to show the value of this more open approach. For all these reasons, if CC-NC disappears, then CC will disappear from my blog, and I will happily go back to automatic copyright or a more restrictive license, as these would be my best options.

Great, and long overdue discussion!


Heather Morrison

On 2011-12-11, at 1:18 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20111211/07423263/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list