Thanks for the hat tip Peter!  Sridhar, here is my argument for why an open
access should be fully open access – meaning CC BY.

 

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001210

 

Best,

Mike

 

Michael W. Carroll

Professor of Law and Director,

Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property

American University, Washington College of Law

4801 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20016

(202) 274-4047 (voice)

(202) 730-4756 (fax)

vcard: http://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/mcarroll/vcard.vcf

 

Research papers: http://works.bepress.com/michael_carroll/
http://ssrn.com/author=330326
blog: MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"www.carrollogos.org" claiming to be http://www.carrollogos.blogspot.com/

See also www.creativecommons.org

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:33 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly openaccess
journal

 

 

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Sridhar Gutam <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear All,

In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of Medicinal and
Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) <http://www.oajmap.in> from Medicinal and Aromatic
Plants Association of India (MAPAI) <http://www.mapai.co.nr> we have asked a
question on a OA forum on what should be the suitable CC license to apply for
the OAJMAP.

We were told and we also got convienced that we should go for CC BY ND. But now
as we are progressing, I feel unfortable in using 'ND'.

Why?? the license says -- No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, 
or
build upon this work.

But, all the research is derived out from the existing and new things would be
built on the existing.

I would like to advice to the Editorial Board, OAJMAP and the Management
Committee, MAPAI to go for CC-BY.

Whats your suggestions pleases??

Sridhar

I would strongly support CC-BY. There has been a lot of discussion recently
about this and two papers by Mike Carroll and others arguing convincingly that
only CC-BY makes sense. CC-NC is impossible to define or operate in practice and
only serves to prevent useful things happening. CC-ND prevents any normal
scholarly and other re-use.

The funding agencies are all now insisting on CC-BY for "Open Access". So by
adopting that you become acceptable target for publishing their funded work.

P.
 


      __________________________________________________________
      Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP & Biotech. (WIPO)
      Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology)
      Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture
      Rehmankhera, Kakori Post
      Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India
      Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025
      Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136
      Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/

      _______________________________________________
      GOAL mailing list
      [email protected]
      http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal




--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069





    [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Reply via email to