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

Graham Triggs grahamtriggs at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 15:27:48 UTC 2014

On 28 January 2014 12:01, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com> wrote:

> I completely agree with all that Jan Velterop said..
> copyright has nothing to do in the scientific enterprise today

But in the wider context, I would not advocate changing the default nature
of copyright protection. I might have a few things to say about how long
you are allowed to assert copyright for, but that's another matter.

For science, having copyright protection is not a bad thing - it's what you
do with it that counts.

> The benefits of having all information accessible without any
> restrictions, and re-usable, the same, are enormous.

Without *any* restriction? That's quite a large brush stroke. I would
certainly advocate that any reasonable use / re-use of a publication should
be permitted, without question or payment. But there are plenty of
unreasonable uses too - not recognizing the original work, not alerting
users to modifications of the work, etc.

You could place the work directly into the public domain, but that may
leave it open to additional risks, with few additional benefits over a
permissive license like CC-BY.

Copyright can still be an important protection, even when you are
permissively licensing the use and re-use of the content in all reasonable

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20140128/85e48c68/attachment.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list