Dear Heather,
Sorry, I just saw that I wrote an uncomplete sentence in my mail below, which rendered the thing hardly understandable. In the last-but-one paragraph about the versions we accept to make publicly available in the biomedical research field: It should have been written "in which the earliest version we accept to make publicly available is the manuscript accepted for publication..." Sorry for this mistake. My writing from an IPhone has to be improved... Kind regards Didier Envoyé de mon iPhone > Le 8 avr. 2015 à 19:59, Didier Pelaprat <didier.pelap...@inserm.fr> a écrit : > > Dear Heather, > > > Your preceding mail, about added costly services which would completly > occlude the initial freely available licenced work, was so clear that I > answered in another mail that it rendered my questions no longer necessary. > > > Your present mail still adds to my understanding! > > > And I completely agree with you on the fact that open repositories offer the > best chances to ensure a persistent free access, and on the importance to > multiply the locations of deposit in trying to limit, as much as we can, the > risk of re-enclosing. > > > This is why we have an agreement with PMC international to transfer them the > accepted maniscripts deposited in our national open repository, HAL... But > many publishers do not like it and forbid it. > > > And this is also why we recommand our authors to deposit all, even the > articles published in OA. And negociate with the OA publishers in order that > they automatically transfer the articles in HAL (less work for the authors), > like they do for PMC (theoretically...). > > > We indeed consider all the open repositories around the world as strategic > infrastructures (almost in the "defense" acception of the term "strategic") > devoted to collecting the whole scientific production from our institutions > and ensuring long-term preservation and free access. > > > Finally, I also agree that, at least in our scientific domain, biomedical > research (we are the french NIH), in which the earliest version we accept to > make publicly available, there is no need to make the deposited stuff under a > license. > > > However, I figure out that the answer might be quite different from one > discipline to another, depending on the use they make of the open > repositories in the publication process. > > > > Thus, once again, a lot of thanks! > > To you and to all on the list, for the elements of thought you all provide. > > > Kind regards > > > Didier > > > Envoyé de mon iPhone > >> Le 8 avr. 2015 à 18:49, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> a >> écrit : >> >> hi Didier, >> >> Thank you for raising good questions to further our understanding of the >> issues. >> >>> On 2015-04-08, at 10:45 AM, Didier Pelaprat wrote: >>> >>> Hi to all, >>> >>> >>> Before all, maybe I did not properly understand what is the topic. If yes, >>> please tell me sincerely. >>> >>> >>> I understood the topic was on whether there was or not a risk of closure >>> brought by a CC-by license, or any orher mean by which a scientific >>> publication may be freely accessible to every usage, including "commercial >>> use". >>> >>> Did I understand properly? >> >> In my opinion, yes. There is no consensus on this topic. >> >>> If yes, in order that I can figure out the consequences of this or that, >>> please could somebody remind me what is exactly under the terms "commercial >>> use" when written in the context of the CC license or other debates on free >>> access to scientific publications/contributions? >> >> This is the simple description from the CC license main website: "This >> license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even >> commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation" - from: >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ >> >> The legal code, available here, does not define commercial use: >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode >> >> If you are using a translated license, the precise wording may not be the >> same as the CC main site. >> >> There is no consensus on what constitutes commercial use. I argue that it is >> important to focus on the main commercial use for copyrighted works: >> actually selling the works for money, and not getting confused by the grey >> areas of what constitutes commercial use. >> >> Other debates on free access is too broad a question to easily answer. >> >>> In other words: >>> >>> >>> -which precise object(s) is (are) under the license? >> >> This is a very good question, Didier. Even when works are licensed as CC-BY, >> it is common for scholarly works to include third-party works which may have >> a different license. There are also neighbouring rights in copyright; for >> example, if a CC-BY licensed work includes a photograph of someone, the >> person in the photo may have additional rights. Even in the case of one >> CC-BY work included within another one, there are two separate requirements >> for attribution. I think the push for CC-BY reflects to some extent a desire >> for simplicity; but it really is not that simple. >> >> Note also that even publishers that use the CC-BY license do not necessarily >> use this license for everything on their website. Public Library of Science, >> for example, has a trademarked logo. >>> >>> - which exact objects are susceptible to be sold? >> >> Any object with a license that permits commercial use. >>> >>> - which objects are authorized (CC-by) or forbidden (other) to be sold >>> against money, when one speaks of "commercial use"? >> >> Any work licensed CC-BY can be sold for money or used for other >> (unspecified) commercial uses. >>> >>> - and how does this generate or not a risk of closure, if the paper is in >>> free public access (either in an open repository, or on the author website, >>> or on both, or on the publisher website, or... or on all of thoses >>> altogether)? >> >> If the paper is available for free access in a variety of places, this >> greatly decreases the risk of enclosure. This is why I recommend that works >> be available in multiple open access archives, even if they are published in >> open access journals. >> >> If papers are available as free access in only one or two places, here are >> some examples of the danger: >> >> Publisher website: publishers and journals come and go and change hands all >> the time. Plus, a fully open access publisher is completely within their >> rights to change their business model at any time. >> >> Author website: authors are under no obligation to maintain their websites, >> and author websites do disappear; for example, these may be on an >> institutional server that is abandoned by the university. This is not a >> secure storage system, one of the main reasons why authors should use >> institutional repositories rather than personal websites. >> >> Open repositories: this is a much better option in my opinion. Here, it is >> best if works are NOT licensed CC-BY. There is always a danger that the >> owners of repositories could decide to charge for their service in providing >> the works. This is one reasons why I argue that the MIT open access policy >> is an improvement over Harvard's. Harvard's says that works will be >> disseminated "but not for a profit", while MIT's specifies open access. The >> danger with "not for a profit" is it leaves the door open to fees for >> cost-recovery. Most OA repositories that I am familiar with have quite >> sensible policies. >> >> Thanks again for raising the questions. >> >> Heather Morrison >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
