This is why the only way to make a document freely available and replicable in a distributed library is to associate a licence. It is certainly necessary to provide standard minimal licences, because authors do not want to be bothered. Possibly a licence could be associated with the fact of placing a paper in a repository, but the author should at least click somewhere.
And the legal value of a licence may depend on geopgraphic location. Bernard On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 12:24:06PM -0000, Graham P Cornish wrote: > I seems to me that the problem with copyright is that you have it whether or > not you want to use it. Those who want to use what you own have no way of > telling whether or not you want to enforce your rights or not, or to what > degree you might wish to enforce or waive them. What is needed is an > internationally recognised system for indicating just what owners are happy > to allowin different circumstances. I hope to be working with an > international agency on thisissue shortly. > > GrahamP Cornish > Copyright consultant > [email protected] > www.coyrightcircle.co.uk > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bernard Lang" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:03 AM > Subject: Re: "Copyleft" article in New Scientist > > > > I do agree that toll-free access is the only essential issue, at this > > time, and that mixing it with free software or open-content licences can > > only muddle the issues ... at least where public discussions are > > concerned, and current public action. > > > > Considering alternative licences is however an interesting topic, > > and ON A PERSONAL BASIS, authors can well chose to grant even more > > freedom than called for by advocates of toll-free access to the > > peer-reviewed research literature. I personally do allow people to > > modify my papers, as long as it is clear who wrote what. Basically, > > it allows for direct reuse of fragments of papers in other work. Just > > my choice. > > > > I am also concerned with fighting the data-base legislation, which > > can also get in the way. > > > > My licence is at: > > > > http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/licence/v1/fddl.html > > > > If you are interested in variations and analyses of licences, for > > text and other types of resources ... see > > > > http://aful.org/presentations/licences/ > > > > The page is in French, but it refers to documents in French and > > English. I unfortunately cannot handle other languages. It has four > > sections: licences for software, licences for text and/or for artistic > > content, references to other sites, references to documents analyzing > > licences. > > > > I would like to point out that for textbooks, when the author is > > WILLING, the situation is much like software. Textbooks are often > > complex, and there are documents and management tools very similar to > > what would constitute source code. Also, textbook often need > > maintenance, to correct mistakes, make addition, follow the evolution > > of the field, adapt to a specific teaching situation. > > Free-software-like licences are then very useful. > > > > I do know one case of an author fighting to get his textbook out of > > the clutches of the publisher. The reason is that the textbook needs > > maintenance to survive, and he no longer has the time to do it > > himself, nor has anyone else, given the huge size of the book. The only > > manageable solution is to let experts separately improve the sections > > for which they are competent: This is pretty much an encyclopedia of > > internet programming. Encyclopedias are actually a good example of > > cooperative creation in the text world. > > > > More generally, similar issues arise regarding the creation, evolution > > and maintenance of educational resources. > > > > But I do agree that these are problems quite different from the specific > > on of toll-free access to the refereed research literature. > > > > Bernard > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:21:39PM +0000, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Seth Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > Okay. As long as you're dealing with expressive wholes, > > > > you're standing on legal precedent. > > > > > > > > It would help if some stipulations were made to assure that > > > > it's clear you're talking about the original presentations, > > > > presentations to which the author asserts authoritative > > > > origin, and presentations of originality that may be false. > > > > The factual elements of any expressive work are fair game. > > > > This is essential from the standpoint of free online > > > > collaboration. > > > > > > Here is a good rule of thumb for advocates of toll-free access to the > > > peer-reviewed research literature: > > > > > > Don't aspire to be more royalist than the king, or more papist than the > > > pope! > > > > > > What was enough for those who got access via tolls should also be enough > > > for those who get access toll-free. No need to stipulate any more. > > > > > > OF COURSE the readers of articles in peer-reviewed journals are > > > free to take the ideas and findings in those articles and build on them > > > as they see fit in their own work. That's the very reason why the > > > researchers published it in the first place! > > > > > > What we are referring to here is not the ideas and findings that are > > > reported. Their usability was never in dispute. We are talking here > > > about access to the TEXT. And it is the TEXT that may not be corrupted, > > > or assigned a false authorship. > > > > > > (Moreover, using findings without citing their source is not a violation > > > of copyright, though it may be exposable and punishable as violation > > > of priority or even plagiarism in other senses.) > > > > > > These confusions come, again, I think, because of putting too much > > > weight on the weak analogies between access to text and access to other > > > things, such as software or music, and perhaps also on weak analogies > > > between copyright and patent. When this happens, we are dealing with > > > MISanalogies and not analogies, and we are better to remind ourselves > > > of what the "use" of refereed journal articles has been all along, > > > independent of whether it was accessed for-fee or for-free. > > > > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > -- > > Non aux Brevets Logiciels - No to Software Patents > > SIGNEZ http://petition.eurolinux.org/ SIGN > > > > [email protected] ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644 > > http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469 > > INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France > > Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion > > CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX -- Non aux Brevets Logiciels - No to Software Patents SIGNEZ http://petition.eurolinux.org/ SIGN [email protected] ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644 http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469 INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
