From: Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:59:43 -0400

Kevin points out a real problem with the Elsevier embargo policy: it
could be hard, even costly, for a repository manager to determine the
embargo period for a particular article.

There is a simple solution to this, however, one which I've advocated
in other contexts: the dated Creative Commons License:

http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2013/07/proposal-dated-creative-commons-license.html

Eric Hellman
President, Free Ebook Foundation
http://www.ebookfoundation.org/
Founder, Unglue.it https://unglue.it/
http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
twitter: @gluejar


On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:05 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:07:36 +0000

Dear Alicia,

Thank you for the additional information.  The reason I think this is one
factor among several that make Elsevier's new policy more complex and
probably unworkable is that these differing embargo lists mean that
repository managers will need to determine the nationality of all authors
on any given paper and then consult the correct embargo list.  Since this
applies at the article level, U.S. repositories will undoubtedly need to
apply both lists in determining appropriate embargoes for any paper
authored by scholars from both countries.  It even raises the question of
who is a U.K. author; is it a U.K. citizen (regardless of where they
work), someone who lives in the U.K. (regardless of nationality or place
of employment), a person employed by a U.K. institution, or a researcher
who is funded by a U.K. body?