[open-science] [Open-access] Open Science Anthology published

Tue Jan 28 17:54:05 UTC 2014

I disagree with Heather's stance and conclusion, but I do very much appreciate her belief in Open as a preferred state of being. I will err to assume our disagreement is based not on dogma but on a misunderstanding of how licenses work and their role as both a legal instrument as well as a sociocultural signal for behavior. From that assumption stems my belief that if I (we) can get our message across constructively and patiently, we will only be doing good service to the cause of open scholarship.

I speak all of the above (and below) for myself, but undoubtedly I am influenced by and influence the organizations I may be associated or employed with.

--
Puneet Kishor

> On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm perfectly happy for Heather to enjoy her assumed role of being a voice in the wilderness. She's entitled to it.
> 
> Jan
> 
>> On 28 Jan 2014, at 17:15, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
>> 
>> All right, folks. I do believe we've crossed over into troll-feeding now.
>> 
>> I for one will now try to resist SIWOTI syndrome on this thread. Let's
>> just agree to let Heather have the last word, then it can all be over.
>> 
>> -- Mike.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 28 January 2014 17:08, Mr. Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I guess my summary was premature...(sigh)
>>> 
>>> On 2014-01-28, at 11:11 AM, "Mr. Puneet Kishor" <punk.kish at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 1.      The resemblance between CC-BY and the BOAI definition is
>>>> superficial in nature. It is particularly important for open access
>>>> advocates to be aware that CC licenses, including CC-BY, do not mean that
>>>> works must be made available free of charge. CC-BY policy has a huge,
>>>> potentially systemic loophole: the possibility of re-enclosure. What is
>>>> given freely today with a CC-BY license could easily be available solely
>>>> through sale from Elsevier or services like RightsLink down the road.
>>> 
>>> No evidence for this. Nearly all CC-BY works are available free of cost. CC
>>> could clarify that re-enclosure in the digital context isn't allowed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Indeed. The license very clearly states that you, the licensee, "may not
>>> apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others
>>> from doing anything the license permits."
>>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_US)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Two comments:
>>> 
>>> CC would have to have the agreement of the Creative Commons community to
>>> change the licenses to prevent re-enclosure. From time to time I participate
>>> in the CC community list and have raised the question about CC and free of
>>> charge. The short answer is that there are many people in the Creative
>>> Commons community for whom freedom means freedom to put up a paywall and
>>> charge for works. Consider the difference between open source software,
>>> where the code is free for anyone to manipulate, but software creators are
>>> free to charge for the software, and open access with its "free of charge".
>>> Klaus, I very much encourage you to sign up for the CC community discussion
>>> and check in with them about this question:
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>> 
>>> The licensee "may not apply legal terms or technological measures..." refers
>>> to applying legal terms or adding TPMs to the work per se. There is nothing
>>> to stop a downstream user from putting up a paywall before you get to the
>>> work. Indeed, it would not be possible to do this, as most of us need to go
>>> through a paywall to connect to the internet (whether we or someone else is
>>> paying).  We are already seeing that people are using articles to compile
>>> books for sale - people have to pay to get the book.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps it was another case of premature summary, but you completely missed
>>> the subsequent para in my email where I wrote, "Unless all copies of the
>>> work vanish from the face of the earth except for the ones remaining in the
>>> vault of an evil publisher who then decides to charge for access to the
>>> vault, what Heather states above is not possible. And, even in the unlikely
>>> scenario I describe, once someone pays for access to the vault and then
>>> downloads the work, that work is once again free like the original."
>>> 
>>> Indeed, if I download your CC BY work, I have all the right in the world (no
>>> matter how misplaced one may think it is) to charge for that work. On the
>>> other hand, others have all the right in the world to ignore my offering and
>>> get your work directly from you or from other sources completely free if it
>>> is still available. The only reason a sane person would pay me for an
>>> otherwise freely available work is if I add something of value to that work.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Puneet.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-access mailing list
>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20140128/57463918/attachment-0003.html>