On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Heather Morrison heath...@eln.bc.cawrote:
On 28-Jan-13, at 8:24 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
Comment: I know how much you appreciate quantitative evidence, PMR, so
here are some quick figures that suggest that scientists do very much
want NC:
These are not
I'd just like to add the point of view of the Living Reviews OA journals
with an example why we currently argue in favor of CC-BY-NC.
First, since not only Marcin Wojnarski doubts that
anyone want to pay for a paper which is elsewhere available for free?
Our long review articles would make
Dear Frank
In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell
them on amazon,
Yes. Anyone can do this because wikipedia articles are openly licenced.
This is a good thing. People are happy with paying for a hard (paper) copy
of something. Printing on real paper, with real
On 01/28/2013 10:44 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:
Question: are you saying that allowing any third party to make use of a
scholar's work to advertise their own products and/or to sell their
advertising services is one of the reasons people are advocating for CC-BY?
I don't know exactly why
Frank,
This is an interesting point and probably the first solid argument in
favor of CC-BY-NC that I've heard. But I want to highlight a few
circumstances that, in my opinion, make this case an exception rather
than a rule.
1. The book - like most (or all?) academic books published for
This seems like trading off the potential for minor revenues/royalties — even
no more than hypothetical in most instances — against the benefit of
unrestricted open access for science and scholarship.
In my view this amounts to profit spite. With a CC-BY-NC licence, why would
the OA publisher
Some responses to PMR:
Nature's Scientific Reports website lists just one fee for APFs, in different
currencies - $1,350 in the Americas. There is no mention of differential
pricing based on CC license choice. From:
http://www.nature.com/srep/authors/index.html#costs
Here is the advice given
Marcin, of course there is room for new services, particularly taking advantage
of the potential of the internet, and at a quick glance, TunedIT looks
promising.
What I am wondering is why new services and companies should not build through
voluntary participation rather than seeking public
Dear Heather.
I believe PMR was referring to these 19ish Nature Publishing Group
journals, which do explicitly charge higher for the CC BY licence
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/07/gold-oa-pricewatch/
and as I've told you elsewhere, where open access journals use Creative
Commons licences CC BY
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Editor Living Reviews
edito...@aei.mpg.dewrote:
Therefore, our authors would object to Peter
Murray-Rust, who has
never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY.
Now I have (assuming Frank Schulz is a practising scientist) . And I cannot
understand
On 2013-01-29, at 11:01 AM, Ross Mounce wrote:
...and as I've told you elsewhere, where open access journals use Creative
Commons licences CC BY is by far the most common choice (whether you count that
by publisher, journal OR article volume)
Comment
From Peter Suber's SPARC Open Access
My statement and Peter Suber's statement do not conflict.
He said 'of all OA journals'
Whilst I said 'of OA journals using creative commons licences'
Both statements are thus correct
On Jan 29, 2013 10:09 PM, Heather Morrison heath...@eln.bc.ca wrote:
On 2013-01-29, at 11:01 AM, Ross Mounce
12 matches
Mail list logo
