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

[Heather Morrison]

hi Egon,

You have raised some very good points, thank you for your contribution  
to the discussion.

Some thoughts:

Allowing commercial use for untenured scholars is a splendid idea. CC  
licenses I would like to see explored:

Commercial use for the 99%
Commercial use for socially responsible companies and individual  
entrepreneurs
Commercial use EXCEPT companies that lobby for more restrictive  
copyright laws
Free use for students and teachers (this should not be called  
commercial use, because education should not be commercial - the fact  
that we are heading in this direction does not make it a good direction)
Free and unrestricted use, with respect. If you wish to use data about  
an endangered species to protect the species, go for it. On the other  
hand, if you wish to use the data to harm the species, we should be  
able to sue. Not just the author, either - anyone.


There are many open movements, and many different types of scholarly  
research and disciplines. I don't believe there is a one-size-fits all  
for licensing purposes.  For example, in many jurisdictions data has  
not been copyrightable, and I think most of us would agree that it is  
not in the interests of science to go this way.

With research data, I am all for the most open we can possibly be. In  
many areas, this means post the data on the web in a way that it can  
easily by manipulated by people or machines, with either no  
restrictions at all or minimal licensing. In the case of personal  
health data, this may mean having a server with a dedicated cable in a  
secure building within a cage, where researchers need to go through  
security procedures to get to the computer. I'm not making this up, by  
the way. If we want researchers to have access to this kind of data,  
we need to find a way to make this possible without compromising  
patient privacy.

cheers,

Heather Morrison



On 11-Dec-11, at 11:16 PM, Egon Willighagen wrote:

> Dear Heather, others,
>
>> Scholars need and want to disseminate their work, and for others to  
>> build on it. Open
>> access is awesome for that. However, scholars are also human beings  
>> who need food
>> and shelter. Peter Murray-Rust, may I assume  that you have a  
>> secure, tenured
>> position and financial security for your retirement? If so, this is  
>> great, but you should
>> be aware that this not true for an increasing percentage of  
>> scholars today.
>
> I do not have a secure position, yet I do not feel the NC clause is
> useful. There is no cause-effect relation any need and the use of NC.
>
> In fact, I think removal of the NC clause is a opportunity for these
> untenured scientists, as it allows them to set up a business around
> non-NC content, as it may fit their need.
>
> For example, the NC clause is incompatible with the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, meaning that any NC material is a no-go area for
> mixing with Open Source tools I am working on. It means I cannot use
> NC material to create better application. So, closed area to such
> applications.
>
> And that means, very much reduced changes for me to get enough funding
> to get tenured.
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Heather Morrison  
> <heatherm at eln.bc.ca> wrote:
>> On 11-Dec-11, at 9:15 PM, Michael Nielsen wrote:
>>> I don't see how a journal article can be regarded as fully open  
>>> when it
>>> can't be reused for commercial purposes.  It's such a huge  
>>> restriction, as
>>> others have pointed out.
>>
>> Let's agree to disagree on this. I am aware that there are many who  
>> think
>> that open access is equivalent to CC-BY.
>
> I agree Open Access is a bad term, and used for completely different
> concepts. I prefer not to use it.
>
>> I hope that after this discussion,
>> all are aware that there is no consensus on this point among open  
>> access
>> advocates. To be clear, I do not merely mean to say that sometimes  
>> we must
>> compromise. From my perspective, CC-BY is a weaker form of open  
>> access, that
>> superficially appears to map to the BOAI definition, but this will  
>> not work
>> out in practice because of the world that we live and the things  
>> that people
>> must do to survive in it.
>
> The Open Source community has struggled this for years, yet, the NC
> clause is not used there. Companies have been very successful, and
> many survive in that environment. In your opinion, what aspects of
> publishing papers and software being different mean that a world
> without NC works for software but not for publishing?
>
>> Here is where I think we differ a little in perspective. Perhaps  
>> this could
>> be because I come from a less intensively capitalist country? It  
>> would
>> rarely make sense to me to refer to individuals as privately funded.
>
> I believe all current generation scientists are running a one-man
> business: they sell there services to the higher bidder (not
> necessarily financially; yeah, I am looking at you, University of X!),
> while keeping their on interest in mind, besides that of the group
> they work in (they are expected to show independence!). So, I rather
> see myself as a self-funded scientist, who just gets funding from
> different universities.
>
> This situation is not rare, and is the only thing I see around me.
>
> My point is... the NC clause / tenure / finance situation is not a
> directed dependencies. It both makes it harder and simpler... neither
> really matters, it's the eco system that can be created without the NC
> clause that really matters. Open Source has shown this to work, and I
> have not seen arguments why this would not work for publications
> either...
>
> Egon
>
> -- 
> Dr E.L. Willighagen
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Institutet för miljömedicin
> Karolinska Institutet (http://ki.se/imm)
> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers