[open-science] Should scientific text be put in the public domain rather than licensed with CC-BY?
punkish at eidesis.org
Wed Jan 12 21:51:49 UTC 2011
On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> > What could we do if all scientific writing were CC-BY that couldn't be done if it were all CC0?
> To play devil's advocate: sue anyone who distributes it without attribution. To put it plainly, CC0 potentially leads to:
> - Some unwanted potential outcomes (people are free to rip your work off without giving you any credit)
> - Possibly some desirable outcomes, but I've not yet heard any ideas that I agree would be obstructed by CC-BY.
> I'm willing to be convinced, but I don't yet see the upside that not requiring attribution for writing would bring.
1. The chances of someone determined to rip me off my work without giving me attribution even if I require it via a contractual license? Greater than zero.
2. The chances of me suing the person who indulges in #1 above? Zero (I have neither the time nor the resources to sue anyone).
3. The chances of someone deciding not to use my work because I contractually require attribution? Greater than zero.
4. The chances of a peer of mine using my work giving me proper credit because it is the right thing to do? Very high, because that is the community in which I live.
I will hedge my bets accordingly.
That said, in my view CC0 is perfect for most of my outputs, and CC-BY is alright for some of them, and both are better than either not putting my work out, or putting it out encumbered by requiring a more restrictive reciprocal obligation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science