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


2015-05-29 5:42 GMT+02:00 LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 09:13:34 -0500
>
> To Stevan's objection I would add that such a statement as this is
> ridiculously overreaching:
>
> At 6:49 PM -0400 5/27/15, LIBLICENSE wrote:
> >
> > We do not believe that scientific, economic and social progress should be hindered in order to protect commercial interests.
>
> It just so happens that university presses have "commercial interests"
> also. If taken literally, this statement advocates stealing everything
> that university presses publish.
>
> I would also second Stevan's point about CC-BY-NC-ND. I have argued
> elsewhere that humanists especially are not well served by just CC-BY
> alone because they have an interest in making sure that their writing
> is translated correctly and CC-BY provides no protection against
> sloppy and poor translation.  Moreover, insisting on CC-BY for OA
> monographs would undercut one business model that has been used
> successfully by university presses (like the one I directed at Penn
> State) to  make OA monograph publishing possible.
>
> Be careful what you wish for!
>
> Sandy Thatcher