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

Heather Morrison heatherm at eln.bc.ca
Mon Dec 12 17:51:40 UTC 2011

Thank you for this clarification, Nick. This helps me to understand where the current CC-NC license is problematic. Perhaps CC might want to consider "not for profit" or "no resale" options. 

Since it appears that you are advocating for CC-BY licenses, can you explain this statement I just copied from the Climate Code Foundation blog you refer to below?
Copyright © 2010 Climate Code Foundation. All rights reserved.

best, Heather

On 2011-12-12, at 9:44 AM, Nick Barnes wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 17:26, Heather Morrison <heatherm at eln.bc.ca> wrote:
>> On 2011-12-12, at 9:04 AM, Nick Barnes wrote:
>>> For instance, effectively CC-NC prevents the Climate Code Foundation
>>> from using a document to promote the public understanding of climate
>>> science.
>> How is this commercial use? If this is commercial use under CC-NC, then CC-NC needs work.
> The Climate Code Foundation is a non-profit company, intending to (for
> instance) train scientists, or develop science outreach materials, or
> organise networks, workshops, and conferences.  All these activities
> need to be funded.  For instance the CCF might be paid for its
> services by an institution, a funding agency, or an NGO.  That's
> "commercial", or could certainly be viewed as such by either an author
> or a court.  Similarly, if we were to have adverts, or a "Donate"
> button, on our blog, we could not quote from a CC-NC work in a blog
> article.
>> If CC licensing is this complicated, would we be better off not using CC licenses at all?
> License choice is of course a matter for the author, as is the
> decision of whether to publish at all.
> -- 
> Nick Barnes, Climate Code Foundation, http://climatecode.org/

More information about the open-science mailing list