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
>
>
> 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