From: Klaus Graf <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 23:45:18 +0200

Mr Thatcher is repeating his well known arguments against CC-BY,
of low value.

A bad translation is better than no translation. How many scholars are
able to get their works translated? Good translations aren't cheap. If
CC-BY helps that translations were made then this is an advantage.

I never heard of problems with anthologies in which CC-BY articles are
integrated.

Klaus Graf


2012/8/7 LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>:
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:22:51 -0500
>
> I can understand why many scientists would not particularly care about
> the quality of translations or about where their articles get
> republished, but these are concerns that a lot of scholars in the
> humanities and social sciences have. The CC-BY license does not
> protect authors against having poor translations done or against
> having their articles reprinted in anthologies where the context might
> be offensive to the authors. So it is not just a "a leftover from the
> control attitude publishers are used to"; these are matters important
> to authors themselves.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>> From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:35:23 +0200
>>
>> Sandy,
>>
>> In addition to the PLOS journals, all of the Open Access Hindawi, BMC
>> and Springer journals have CC-BY, and since earlier this year also the
>> OA articles in Springer's hybrid journals. CC-BY-NC is a leftover from
>> the control attitude publishers are used to in a subscription
>> environment and is a sign of open access publishing immaturity: a lack
>> of understanding that in respect of OA, the publisher is paid for the
>> service of peer-reviewed publishing and not for ongoing control over
>> the content (the NC clause nullifies important potential benefits of
>> OA: unimpeded text mining and re-use for meta-analysis and large-scale
>> knowledge ingestion, and usage by small and medium-sized companies,
>> start-ups and SMEs, the ones responsible for the bulk of job
>> creation).
>>
>> I am not aware of licence information being available in aggregated
>> form. The Directory of Open Access Journals (http://www.doaj.org/doaj)
>> does indicate for some journals what the licence is they use, but it
>> is nowhere near complete and hybrid journals are not covered.
>> Regrettably, it also doesn't offer a possibility to search on licence
>> type (it's not one of the search fields and free search doesn't seem
>> to pick it up), but given that this information is only given for what
>> looks like a minority of journals in the DOAJ, such search wouldn't be
>> of much help anyway, at this stage.
>>
>> Jan Velterop