[open-science] SPARC author addendum uses CC-NC licence and now all hybrid publishers have followed
mn at michaelnielsen.org
Mon Dec 12 00:40:47 UTC 2011
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Heather Morrison wrote:
> As a personal story, lack of financial security is one of the reasons
> why I use CC-NC. The vast majority of my own work is not funded at all.
> This is increasingly common in the social sciences and humanities. There
> could be a point in time where I might have good reason to want to try
> to sell some of my work, to pay my rent and grocery bills. Not that I
> personally am that important, but the measures mentioned above indicate
> that I have plenty of company. Like most scholars and publishers, I am
> the 99%.
> If I gave away my work and saw that someone else had sold it and kept the
> profits for themselves, I would be MAD. Not only at them - but also at anyone
> who told me that I should give away my work. If I was among those who were
> recently laid off, and I saw someone else profiting off my work, I would be
> REALLY REALLY MAD. Wouldn't you?
Personally, if the work is publicly funded then I think CC-BY or public
domain is appropriate. The reason is that a major motivator for public
funding of long-term basic research is that the research can later be used
by anyone as the basis of commercial products which benefit the broader
public; the rising tide floats all boats argument for supporting public
funding of basic research. If researchers wish not to contribute to a
broader commons, then I believe they should forfeit the public funding.
On the other hand, if the research is funded in some other way --- by a
company, or out of the author's own pocket, for example --- then I think
it's up to the people funding the work to decide under what license it
should be released. I certainly have no problem with a CC-BY-NC or more
restrictive license under those circumstances, for many of the reasons
More information about the open-science