[open-science] [Open-access] how open is it

[Jonathan Gray]

Great. In which case perhaps the chart could just say that stronger OA at
the top should *be* CC-BY, rather than a liberal license like CC-BY? My
comment below re: licensing standard was intended to guard against liberal
interpretations of 'open' - that might include, e.g. NC or ND restrictions.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012, Laurent Romary wrote:

> That's exactly the direction that the TEI consortium adopted (see
> http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/access.xml): a combination of CC-BY and
> BSD-2-clauses.
> I guess we could get some institutions follow the trend if we were to go
> along with a strong statement.
> Laurent
>
> Le 26 sept. 2012 à 09:42, Mike Taylor a écrit :
>
> > Strong agreement here. There is enormous value in organisations using
> > CC BY, not only because it's a good licence but because everyone who
> > cares about such issues already knows what it means. Instant
> > recognition is very valuable. No-one wants to read pages of legalese
> > only to emerge on the other side thinking, "Oh, so it's just like CC
> > BY, then".
> >
> > -- Mike.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 September 2012 08:08, cameronneylon.net <cn at cameronneylon.net>
> wrote:
> >> My personal view, built on the idea that the key issue is
> interoperability, is that we should just require CC-BY as the Gold
> Standard. Much simpler and much less risk of unexpected problems arising
> due to license incompatibilities downstream. It always bothers me that
> people *want* a bespoke license. What does this achieve? And what is the
> motivation?
> >>
> >> So I think working towards a very strong statement of best practice for
> research/science is valuable and it seems that there is some movement
> towards CC-BY/ccZero/BSD for content, data and code respectively (code is
> the least worked out and has the least agreement as yet) as a standard.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Cameron
> >>
> >>>> Without wishing to re-open old wounds, the OpenDefinition isn't
> really appropriate in this context as it isn't strong enough as a
> definition for interoperability of bespoke licences. We're adopting the
> BOAI original definition alongside the recommendations of BOAI10 here that
> CC-BY is best practice (for journal *articles*...not really referring
> strongly to data here) ie share-alike is not "open enough" in this domain.
> >>>
> >>> Point very much taken Cameron. In which case - what about
> >>> "OpenDefinition compliant 'attribution style' licensing" which
> >>> shouldn't cause interoperability issues?
> >>>
> >>> Or perhaps it isn't worth broadening from CC-BY (as it might have been
> >>> a few years ago) as people are much more likely to use CC-BY than to
> >>> roll their own, which of course should be encouraged.
> >>>
> >>> J.
> >>>
> >>>> But feel free to comment!
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>>
> >>>> Cameron
> >>>>
> >>>>> J.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Tom Olijhoek <
> tom.olijhoek at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A very important announcement I think
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> judge for yourself
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.arl.org/sparc/media/HowOpenIsIt.shtml
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> YES. It's about time something like this happened - SPARC has been
> quiet and
> >>>>>> I look to them for some guidance. I haven't read the booklet, but
> comment on
> >>>>>> the abstract
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> • Move the conversation from “Is It Open Access?” to “How Open Is
> It?”
> >>>>>> • Clarify the definition of OA
> >>>>>> • Standardize terminology
> >>>>>> • Illustrate a continuum of “more open” versus “less open”
> >>>>>> • Enable people to compare and contrast publications and policies
> >>>>>> • Broaden the understanding of OA to a wider audience
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> These are all critical. Until recently there was nowhere they could
> be
> >>>>>> discussed without the discussion being destroyed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But now we have OKF open-access !!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's offer this organ to the world and let's finally try to get a
> decent
> >>>>>> discussion going.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> P.
> >>>>>>
> >>Laurent Romary
> INRIA & HUB-IDSL
> laurent.romary at inria.fr <javascript:;>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org <javascript:;>
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>


-- 
Jonathan Gray

Head of Community
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20120926/71f4d61d/attachment-0001.html>