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?