From: Klaus Graf <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:40:57 +0200 I have argued elsewhere that CC-BY is the only appropriate license for true Open Access. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1055%20 ND is too restrictive: "For example, an author’s colleague would not be able to use a figure from a manuscript in teaching without specific permission" (Virginia Barbour at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/05/28/elseviers-non-sharing-policy-barbour/ ) ND means: only re-use 1:1 is allowed, no excerpts, no use of single figures. Klaus Graf 2015-05-29 5:42 GMT+02:00 LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>: > > From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 09:13:34 -0500 > > To Stevan's objection I would add that such a statement as this is > ridiculously overreaching: > > At 6:49 PM -0400 5/27/15, LIBLICENSE wrote: > > > > We do not believe that scientific, economic and social progress should be hindered in order to protect commercial interests. > > It just so happens that university presses have "commercial interests" > also. If taken literally, this statement advocates stealing everything > that university presses publish. > > I would also second Stevan's point about CC-BY-NC-ND. I have argued > elsewhere that humanists especially are not well served by just CC-BY > alone because they have an interest in making sure that their writing > is translated correctly and CC-BY provides no protection against > sloppy and poor translation. Moreover, insisting on CC-BY for OA > monographs would undercut one business model that has been used > successfully by university presses (like the one I directed at Penn > State) to make OA monograph publishing possible. > > Be careful what you wish for! > > Sandy Thatcher