From: Klaus Graf <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 23:45:18 +0200 Mr Thatcher is repeating his well known arguments against CC-BY, of low value. A bad translation is better than no translation. How many scholars are able to get their works translated? Good translations aren't cheap. If CC-BY helps that translations were made then this is an advantage. I never heard of problems with anthologies in which CC-BY articles are integrated. Klaus Graf 2012/8/7 LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>: > 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