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

Thomas Kluyver takowl at gmail.com
Sun Dec 11 23:07:31 UTC 2011

On 11 December 2011 22:14, Heather Morrison <heatherm at eln.bc.ca> wrote:

> 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.

* These hypothetical stealing bloggers still need to say where it's come
from, and if you do a decent job at promoting your own site, it should get
most of the visitors, appear higher in search rankings, and so on. There
are sites out there that just mirror Wikipedia for profit, but none of them
have made much of an impact, as far as I know.
* No other blogger can repost any copyrightable part of your work (like a
diagram you've drawn) if their blog is also ad supported. To my mind, this
sort of reuse is a key part of what open access aims to allow.
* Tools such as RSS aggregators or Readability will already deprive you of
ad revenue, however you license your content. It's impossible to force
people to read things on your site, with your ads beside them.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20111211/3fea74f4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list