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

Fri Dec 23 21:54:57 UTC 2011

Thanks you very much, Peter.

Figures are important and these are valuable.

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Peter Suber <peter.suber at gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter MR,
>
> I have some data and links in this article from last summer.
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/07-02-11.htm#copyright
>
> Here's the key excerpt (from #9):
>
> When I checked last week (June 24, 2011), 1,448 out of 6,647 journals in
>> the DOAJ, or 21.8%, used some kind of CC license.
>
> http://www.doaj.org/?func=licensedJournals
>>
>
>
> As of the same date, 747 or 11.2% had the SPARC Europe Seal of Approval,
>> which requires CC-BY.
>> http://www.doaj.org/?func=sealedJournals
>>
>
>
> OA repositories are rarely in a position to obtain the permissions needed
>> for libre OA.  Hence, we can't criticize or complain when most of their
>> deposits are gratis, not libre.
>
>
I don't complain - I accept this as one way forward. If we don't pay this
is what we can strive for

> But OA journals can easily obtain the permissions needed for libre OA.
>>  When they don't offer libre OA, they have no excuse.
>
>
Agreed.

>  This is one of the largest missed opportunities of the OA movement to
>> date.
>> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/10-02-09.htm#2
>
>
Peter - this is exactly my argument. I have nothing against Green, but it
cannot give the permissions we need to do modern informatics-based science.
The question is how we change it. I think *some* publishers do not realise
the problems with non-libreOA and may change if given rational evidence. If
we can get a few to flip, then we might make slow but constant progress.

I'd like a place where this strategy can be discussed rationally without
being swamped with GreenOA assertions and ill-thought-out assertions about
how authors want CC-NC. Every funder I have talked to would like completely
libreOA and - within limits - is prepared to pay for it. How one fixes
prices in an artificial monopoly is a problem of politics, not economics.

>
>>
>
> Today most libre OA is gold OA.  But unfortunately it's not yet the case
>> that most gold OA is libre OA, and unfortunately it's not even close.
>
>
Agreed. Pubmed has ca 20 million articles. Many of those don't even have
publicly visible abstracts. Of the rest only 1% are OAlibre and that is the
only amount that we are allowed to index, mine, serach for images,
transform data, etc. I don't think people in A&H have any idea what a loss
the full article is to a modern informatics scientist.

>
>      Best,
>      Peter S.
>
> Peter Suber
> bit.ly/suber-gplus
>
>
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20111223/8cdc304b/attachment-0001.html>