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

Sridhar Gutam gutam2000 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 12 04:34:35 UTC 2011

Hi All,

I am giving my quick comments/suggestions on the subject... shall we ask
the author to choose his own terms of license as per his/her institution

I am sorry I have not gone thru the discussion... I shall be doing the same

as the author addendum is only a format... while educating the authors
about various licenses, if the format allows the author to choose the best
license, it would be better...

what others may say?

Thanks & Regards
Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, PG Dip Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP & Biotechnology
Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) & Joint Secretary, ARSSF
Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture (CISH)
Rehmankhera, P.O.Kakori, Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India
Fax: +91-522-2841025, Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Mobile:+91-9005760036

CISH http://www.cishlko.org
ARSSF http://www.arssf.co.nr
My site http://www.gutam.co.nr
My Publications http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/
My Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/gutam2000
My Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gutamsridhar
My LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/sridhargutam

On 12 December 2011 09:54, Heather Morrison <heatherm at eln.bc.ca> wrote:

> On 11-Dec-11, at 3:07 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> 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.
> But:
> * 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.
> Comment: why would I want to put myself in a position where I might have
> to compete with someone copying my blog? Much easier to license NC - or all
> rights restricted, if CC takes this option away from me. This won't
> necessarily stop people, but at least it tells anyone who pays attention
> that this is not okay.
> * 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.
> Comment: if I have licensed my work as CC-BY, then re-use is allowed, and
> for commercial purposes. Does this not mean that others can take my work
> and create derivates, such as an ad-filled copy? How so?
> * 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.
> Comment: this is an interesting point. At any rate, my reasons for
> preferring NC are not restricted to web ads. For example, I might want to
> create and sell a book.
> best,
> Heather Morrison
> ______________________________**_________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**listinfo/open-science<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20111212/58af51a5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list