[open-science] Share Alike? Or not?
tom.olijhoek at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 12:22:15 UTC 2012
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
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.
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
> > covered by a creative commons licence - currently a slightly out-of-date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
> > site, but also elsewhere) is generically covered by CC-BY-3.0
> > 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
> > This brought up the following fact: I don't know whether we should be
> > 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
> > source. Partly it's about wanting to try to recruit more people to a
> > project.
> > However, there's a question about whether we ought to be insisting on
> > 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
> > one"
> > The key word is "distribute", meaning that under the terms of that
> > 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
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science