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


On 6 Aug 2012, at 03:32, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:37:17 -0500
>
> So, how many of the current Gold OA journals abide by the full BOAI
> requirements? I think PLoS does, but how many others use the CC-BY
> license instead of the CC-BY-NC license? Is this information available
> somewhere in aggregated form?
>
> Sandy Thatcher