LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:23:45 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:09:52 -0500

Why should the people who met in Budapest in 2002 have a monopoly on
the "correct" definition of open access?  There were some of us
working on open-access projects long before that meeting was held and
developing business models around them. I trace the history of one
such project  for OA monograph publishing in the CIC (Committee on
Institutional Cooperation) in the early 1990s in the lead article in
the April issue of the Journal of Scholarly Publishing. The
appropriate CC license for that initiative (before CC existed) would
have been CC BY-NC-ND.

Sandy Thatcher



> From: "Peter B. Hirtle" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:56:26 +0000
>
> I agree with Klaus Graf that CC BY is the only appropriate license for
> open access.  To argue otherwise only obfuscates the clear, settled
> definition of open access.
>
> But he is wrong about the Creative Commons ND licenses.  First, he
> misquotes Virginia Boucher who in her blog post speaks of the NC
> licenses, not the ND licenses.  And as for the ND license, it is
> perfectly ok to excerpt content from an ND license.  As the legal code
> for that license says, it grants you the right to "Reproduce and Share
> the Licensed Material, in whole or in part." Note the "in part."  That
> means that you can use excerpts or take a figure from an ND-licensed
> work.  You would, however, need to mark the excerpt with the
> attribution and license of the original.  What you can't do is
> distribute any modified versions of an ND-licensed work without
> permission (what the licenses call "adapted material").
>
> Since knowledge advances by building upon and modifying the work of
> our predecessors, an ND license is inappropriate for academic content.
> But it is not as restrictive as Graf suggests.
>
> Peter Hirtle
> Cornell University
>
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Klaus Graf <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:40:57 +0200
>>
>>  I have argued elsewhere that CC-BY is the only appropriate license for true
>>  Open Access.
>>
>>  http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1055%20
>>
>>  ND is too restrictive: "For example, an author's colleague would not be able to
>>  use a figure from a manuscript in teaching without specific permission"
>>  (Virginia Barbour at:
>>
>>  http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/05/28/elseviers-non-
>>  sharing-policy-barbour/
>>  )
>>
>>  ND means: only re-use 1:1 is allowed, no excerpts, no use of single figures.
>>
>>  Klaus Graf

ATOM RSS1 RSS2