[open-science] SPARC author addendum uses CC-NC licence and now all hybrid publishers have followed
nb at climatecode.org
Mon Dec 12 18:03:54 UTC 2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 17:51, Heather Morrison <heatherm at eln.bc.ca> wrote:
> 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.
My understanding is that CC have put a lot of effort into thinking
through this in the last few years, including options such as those.
> 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.
That text was originally put on there by our volunteer wordpress
admin. When the site went up it wasn't clear what sort of content
would be going on it and what sorts of licensing would be possible,
and since then my feet haven't touched the ground. So mea culpa.
Compare with our (more-recently-minted) Science Code Manifesto site:
http://sciencecodemanifesto.org/. PMR had a post (about similar
issues on his blog) a while ago. While I'm in confessional mode, my
recent IEEE Software article isn't OA either.
Nick Barnes, Climate Code Foundation, http://climatecode.org/
More information about the open-science