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

Tue Dec 13 16:14:07 UTC 2011

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Mr. Puneet Kishor <punkish at eidesis.org> wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>
>> Puneet
>>
>> Not sure what you see wrong in the combined solution below, and why you
>> call it mixing apples and oranges
>>
> I have a bottle of jam on my table that says on the label, "To be eaten only by nice people." Everyday I look at it but can't bring myself to opening it.
>
See also the famous MIT style "do no evil" license,

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/47028/how-could-we-rewrite-the-no-evil-license-to-make-it-free

I can't find the original story, but I remember that IBM lawyers
insisted on licensing the software so that they could "do evil" with
the software. It is considered non-free because it restricts your use.
If anyone with better Google skills can find the relevant link it
makes an important point - many of your everyday terms can be
ill-defined legally. Google would not host the software either, due to
the license,

http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code

This license will never be considered free, or open due to the
restrictions it attempts to place on use. I think the majority of us
would prefer people did not do evil with the work we produce, but the
licensing is not the correct place to try to restrict this as evil is
quite subjective.

Marcus