From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:13:13 +0000

LERU has pithily described a slightly shorter version of this response
as ’2.5 pages of nonsense’:

http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/news/25-pages-of-nonsense-the-stm-statement-on-the-open-science-council-conclusions/

Can I focus on one point made in the longer version:

"However publishers still require at a minimum an exclusive licensing
of rights and sometimes a copyright transfer to enable publication on
behalf of the author. "

Is that true?  Are PLoS and BMC and many other open access publishers
requesting an exclusive licensing of rights?  If not, can STM explain
how these publishers are managing to maintain successful businesses?

Thanks

David



On 3 Jun 2016, at 00:44, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 10:39:08 -0400

Of possible interest:

STM members have read with interest and welcome the transparency in
drafting the European Competitiveness Council conclusions on the
transition towards an Open Science system.  Further to our press
release issued on the 28th May we have the following constructive
feedback on the conclusions designed to strengthen and enhance the
proposals

http://www.stm-assoc.org/2016_05_28_STM_Extended_Feedback_EU_Compt_council_conclusions.pdf