[open-science] Share Alike? Or not?

[Tom Olijhoek]

Hi Matt,

When you have a cc-BY-SA  the material may not be used in a patent since a
patent involves copyrighting and this is then different from what the
license requires.
On the other hand we (@ccess) have a strong preference for the CC-BY
atribution only license, this is the only "real" open access in our view.

Tom Olijhoek
coordinator @ccess

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com>wrote:

> CC only concerns the Copyright, not patents.
>
> Klaus Graf
>
> 2012/6/14 Matthew Todd <matthew.todd at sydney.edu.au>:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Another licence question. Our open science projects on The Synaptic Leap
> are
> > covered by a creative commons licence - currently a slightly out-of-date
> > CC-BY-2.5.
> >
> > The open source drug discovery for malaria project (taking place on the
> same
> > site, but also elsewhere) is generically covered by CC-BY-3.0
> >
> >
> http://openwetware.org/wiki/OSDDMalaria:GSK_Arylpyrrole_Series:Story_so_far
> >
> > We need to deal with the various inconsistencies, and since we're
> writing up
> > the first paper on the malaria work we need to firm up the overall
> licence.
> > This brought up the following fact: I don't know whether we should be
> Share
> > Alike or not.
> >
> > My feeling is that anyone should be able to use whatever we do, provided
> > there is attribution. To be honest our desire for attribution is mainly
> > about insisting on good practice - don't use something without quoting
> the
> > source. Partly it's about wanting to try to recruit more people to a
> unified
> > project.
> >
> > However, there's a question about whether we ought to be insisting on
> Share
> > Alike. I need clarification on the following from knowledgeable people:
> >
> > The Share Alike licence we'd use
> > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) includes the following
> > phrase: "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may
> > distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to
> this
> > one"
> >
> > The key word is "distribute", meaning that under the terms of that
> licence
> > it would be possible for a company to take the results from our malaria
> > work, internalise those results and use them to make money via a patent,
> > correct? Since that process does not involve "distributing" anything?
> >
> > Is that correct? I am keen not to bar commercial spin-offs from our
> work. I
> > am keen to avoid licences that might make companies wary. Naturally those
> > spin-offs should not restrict what we are doing in any way.
> >
> > By NOT using share-alike, are we exposing ourselves to some difficult
> > situation we've not predicted?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mat
> >
> >
> > --
> > MATTHEW TODD | Senior Lecturer and Honours Coordinator
> > School of Chemistry | Faculty of Science
> >
> > THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> > Rm 519, F11 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
> > T +61 2 9351 2180  | F +61 2 9351 3329  | M +61 415 274104
> > E matthew.todd at sydney.edu.au  | W
> > http://sydney.edu.au/science/chemistry/research/todd.html
> >
> > CRICOS 00026A
> > This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised
> use
> > is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
> delete it
> > and any attachments.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-science mailing list
> > open-science at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20120614/c424ac14/attachment-0001.html>