[open-science] text-mining licence exemplar

Wed Jun 6 14:23:11 UTC 2012

The editor will take this up with T&F. My aim is for mining in perpetuity
and not the 6 month deal. But, I'm interested in seeing how they respond.

In respect of NC - I would never go anywhere near an NC licence. Segments
everything and not open. Much happier with a CC-BY :-)

A

> Rockefellar University Press also has a propriety period and then opens up
> the content.
>
> RUP goes further than free/gratis: it makes the content available under a
> CC-BY-SA-NC license.
> Details<http://www.rupress.org/site/subscriptions/terms.xhtml>
> .
>
> Agreed that this approach is more valuable for text-mining than a 6 month
> window of availability. I'd recommend this model... with CC-BY instead of
> CC-BY-SA-NC :)
>
> Sincerely,
> Heather
>
> --
> Heather Piwowar
>
> DataONE postdoc with NESCent and Dryad
>   studying research data sharing and reuse
>   remotely from Dept of Zoology, UBC, Vancouver Canada
> http://researchremix.org
> @researchremix <http://twitter.com/#!/researchremix>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Ross Mounce <ross.mounce at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Can you shame them at least into doing the opposite? NON-open for six
>> >> months, then release under CC BY after that embargo elapses?
>> >>
>> >> -- Mike.
>>
>> For text-mining purposes this would make more sense - it's a good
>> proposal. Some journals currently operate like this e.g. The
>> Biological Bulletin http://www.biolbull.org/site/misc/about.xhtml
>>
>> which is free (gratis) to access after 1 year.
>>
>> Initial free (gratis) access, reverting to subscription access after a
>> given time, to me sounds like a purely promotional activity with no
>> real helpful research purpose, especially WRT text-mining.
>>
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>
>