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
>
>
> 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