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