Me to - this is the fundamental blocker when we try to explore full text content exchange between repositories.
Jo On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Laurent Romary <laurent.rom...@inria.fr> wrote: > I would definitely support this. > Laurent > > Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote: >> There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan >> Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the >> manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an >> open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, >> then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. >> If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access >> without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published >> version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad >> is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be >> deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his >> U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the >> case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. >> Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't >> either. It's always the author, as copyright holder by default. All >> repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of >> acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the >> publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the >> manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse >> to publish the article. >> >> >> Jan, >> I think this is very important. >> >> If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in >> repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside >> other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway >> >> It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the >> publisher version of record. >> >> It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is >> only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all. >> >> And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week >> >> -- >> Peter Murray-Rust >> Reader in Molecular Informatics >> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry >> University of Cambridge >> CB2 1EW, UK >> +44-1223-763069 >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > Laurent Romary > INRIA & HUB-IDSL > laurent.rom...@inria.fr > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
