I was sad to see a blogpost by Heather Morrison - an "open access advocate" argue strongly for CC-NC-BY-SA rather than CC-BY for "Open Access" articles. http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/12/dissension-in-open-access-ranks-on-cc.html Heather asks for comment, but there is no online mechanism so I am replying to her here. I'll just say that many of the assertions and arguments about the value of CC-NC are flawed.
It would be extremely damaging if the non-openAccess community were to take away the view that there are different strengths of OA and that anyone can choose what they like. There is OA-gratis and OA-libre. Organisations like SPARC have asserted that CC-BY is the effective licence for libre OA and that CC-NC is not compliant. CC-NC is not libre OA and cannot be redefined to be so. (I don't have references - that's what this post is about). Rather than rehearse the arguments against CC-NC in this post it is critical that we assemble *rapidly* a compelling simple resource pack. If - as Heather suggests - we have OA advocates arguing that the third world should use CC-NC to protect the value of their contributions it will even further damage the re-use of information. It's possible that SPARC or other organizations have some documents, but we are going to have to do this as a matter of urgency. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
