[open-science] Elsevier caught selling articles that should have been open access

[Emanuil Tolev]

I'd be careful with copyleft science. It did propel open-source in
computing to international importance, but a lot, lot, lot of people
nowadays just use permissive licensing, because copyleft has problems.

But you don't generally reuse articles inside other articles, how would
copyleft work on scientific text? E.g. what would say CC-SA achieve?
Doesn't prevent anybody from picking up the artifact and selling it if they
want to. The issue here is that the funder (e.g. RCUK, Wellcome) doesn't
want companies to do that to OA articles. I'm not sure this can even be
resolved by licensing the object itself differently.

On 10 March 2015 at 20:11, William Waites <ww at eris.okfn.org> wrote:

> Since everyone started using the word "Open" so they wouldn't have to
> use scary words like "Free" this is not surprising. Enabling this kind
> of behaviour is exactly the reason that we have Open Source Software
> instead of just Free Software. This was the whole motivation behind
> "Open". After all, how can anyone make money from Free?
>
> So maybe we should be advocating copyleft science. It's not the
> commercial use that irks -- many times I'd be perfectly happy to buy a
> nice bound copy of some good free papers, and good on anyone who can
> make a business selling such books. It's the proprietariness that's
> the problem.
>
> -w
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20150310/ab63223a/attachment-0003.html>