[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
On 8 April 2015 at 22:29, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote: I’m not sure about that. According to the legal code, the license applies to the work “to which the Licensor applied [the] license”, not to a specific copy of it. And the licensee (“You”), is not someone who obtains a copy, but “any individual exercising the Licensed Rights”. And more explicitly from the legal code: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time So it is directly asserted that the licensor (e.g. a publisher) could stop distributing the work with a CC-BY licence at any time, and distribute the work with any other licence. Whether a publisher actually can is not a facet of the CC-BY licence, but the agreements / contracts entered into with the authors of the work. As I said before, that the license is irrevocable does not cover what the licensor is permitted to do in how they choose to distribute / stop distributing / distribute with a different license. It covers only a licensee's rights as granted to them when they obtained that work - whether directly from the licensor, or through a permitted redistribution - in acceptance of those license terms. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
On 08/04/2015 18:27:24, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Once the paper has been offered under a CC-BY license that license is ‘irrevocable’. Does ‘irrevocable’ not mean what I think it does? Further, also under Scope: If you think that 'irrevocable' means that the copyright holder is not able to stop distributing it under CC-BY, and then distributing under another license, then no, that is not what it means. It means that you can not remove any rights acquired by someone that has been given to them by the CC-BY licence which was granted to them at the time they retrieved the paper. So - e.g. Elsevier - could change the licence on papers served by their website, and that would affect anyone obtaining it from the website after that point. But they could not do anything to restrict the rights of anyone that has already downloaded the paper under a CC-BY licence (which would include redistribution, including with the same licence for further users). re: No downstream restrictions. Here, it does not prevent anyone re-issuing the paper that they have acquired with different licence terms - you would need an -SA variant to do that. What it says is that when offering the paper under CC-BY you can't add barriers that prevent the person acquiring the paper from being able to exercise all the rights afforded to them under CC-BY. If you take the example of ReadCube read access links - you could not issue a (version of the) paper with a CC-BY licence within a print / copy restricted reader. But you could take a CC-BY paper - that would be a technological restriction. But you could take the CC-BY paper and re-issue it under a different licence within a restricted reader; providing that it wasn't e.g. CC-BY-SA licence. G___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
Graham wrote: So - e.g. Elsevier - could change the licence on papers served by their website, and that would affect anyone obtaining it from the website after that point. I’m not sure about that. According to the legal code, the license applies to the work “to which the Licensor applied [the] license”, not to a specific copy of it. And the licensee (“You”), is not someone who obtains a copy, but “any individual exercising the Licensed Rights”. I find it very hard to believe that I could distribute a copy of a work obtained before a new license has been applied, but not a copy of the same work obtained after, as the original CC BY license is still in force. Marc Couture De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Graham Triggs Envoyé : 8 avril 2015 16:46 À : goal@eprints.org Objet : [GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL? On 08/04/2015 18:27:24, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.ukmailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Once the paper has been offered under a CC-BY license that license is ‘irrevocable’. Does ‘irrevocable’ not mean what I think it does? Further, also under Scope: If you think that 'irrevocable' means that the copyright holder is not able to stop distributing it under CC-BY, and then distributing under another license, then no, that is not what it means. It means that you can not remove any rights acquired by someone that has been given to them by the CC-BY licence which was granted to them at the time they retrieved the paper. So - e.g. Elsevier - could change the licence on papers served by their website, and that would affect anyone obtaining it from the website after that point. But they could not do anything to restrict the rights of anyone that has already downloaded the paper under a CC-BY licence (which would include redistribution, including with the same licence for further users). re: No downstream restrictions. Here, it does not prevent anyone re-issuing the paper that they have acquired with different licence terms - you would need an -SA variant to do that. What it says is that when offering the paper under CC-BY you can't add barriers that prevent the person acquiring the paper from being able to exercise all the rights afforded to them under CC-BY. If you take the example of ReadCube read access links - you could not issue a (version of the) paper with a CC-BY licence within a print / copy restricted reader. But you could take a CC-BY paper - that would be a technological restriction. But you could take the CC-BY paper and re-issue it under a different licence within a restricted reader; providing that it wasn't e.g. CC-BY-SA licence. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
This is a good point and thank you for your participation Jacinto. CC-BY-SA is not the same as copyleft. What CC-BY SA requires is that downstream derivatives use the same license, but not that the user shares their work in the same manner. This is different from what I would consider a commonsense understanding of sharealike. For example, if I share my work freely on the world wide web using a CC-BY-SA license, someone else can take the work and include it in a compilation for them to sell, as long as they use the same license. In other words, they need to use the license, but they do not need to follow my example of free-of-charge. There are important differences between scholarly works and the code that is central to the free software community. For many in the free software community, what is important is that you can access the underlying code and change it (re-use), while the question of whether the software is free of charge is a different matter. These are not moot points. Coding software, manipulating research data, and reading articles are three different things. best, Heather On 2015-04-08, at 9:59 AM, Jacinto Dávila wrote: Before we get trapped into the technical details, I think we must welcome the spirit of Jeroen's wisth list and of Heather's challenge. Thank you so much. CC-BY does have that kind of potential problem. The free software community saw that coming and invented copyleft. CC-BY-SA sort that out, I think. On 8 April 2015 at 09:06, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:04 PM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Jeroen - CC-BY license Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility of re-enclosure. ... I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument. If, for whatever reason, I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article freely available. I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing unlimited distribution provided there is attribution. David I completely agree with David. If HeatherM can show us that total enclosure has ever actually occurred we need to know. The conditions are almost inconceivable: * a commercial company encloses the *published* CC-BY article. It strips off the licence (thereby breaking the contract). * the world destroys or loses ALL other copies of the manuscript. It then forgets that this manuscript ever existed as CC-BY. Only then does the illegally enclosed object represent monopoly control. In the normal case there are always copies of the un-enclosed article available for free use, re-use, modification and redistribution P. [Far more serious is the following scenario which happens frequently enough to be really serious. A traditional toll-access publisher accepts payment from an author/funder for CC-BY licensing. It then publishes the manuscript without CC-BY and under a more (often completely) restrictive licence. Only the author/funder knows that the m/s should be CC-BY. Unless they publish this information (as Wellcome Trust and some libraries did last year) the m/s will remain closed and will continue to be resold. And early copies , before the discovery, will probably still circulate with All rights reserved. ] -- 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 -- Jacinto Dávila http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto ___ 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
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
David, Thank you for your contribution. To summarize your argument, you are saying that CC-BY works cannot be enclosed because anyone can buy a copy and make it open access. Some flaws with this argument: Practical: let's imagine that every article in every journal listed in PubMedCentral were licensed CC-BY. A company with a desire for profit-making copies the lot, develops a cool value-added service at an attractive price point, sells the package - and advertising, too. This is a success; people use and advertise in this service, which erodes support for PMC and the journals listed there. The company becomes annoyed with PMC - a free public service competing with the private sector - and lobbies, successfully, for the removal of funding for PMC. Assuming all the articles remain CC-BY, yes, anyone could buy them up and make the works open access again - but the company can set the price. One could find other means to gather the articles; my advice is not to underestimate the work or cost. CC-BY does not include any obligation for downstream users to use the same license. There is nothing to stop this company from changing the works to a more restrictive license. CC-BY-SA, in this sense, is a less dangerous license. This is not intended as an endorsement of CC-BY-SA for open access. The danger is greater when the CC-BY license is in the hands of a company that holds some or all of the rights under copyright. For example, if a fee is paid to Elsevier, Wiley, etc. to publish a work as CC-BY, there is nothing in the CC-BY license per se that would prevent the companies from reverting to All Rights Reserved or other more restrictive licenses. This could happen even if the author retains copyright, because author copyright retention can co-exist with transfer of virtually all rights to a publisher (some license-to-publish approaches are very much like this). Authors could in theory negotiate publishing contracts to prevent this; but don't expect the industry to develop this. Thanks again for your contribution and another example that we in the OA movement are not fully in agreement on all of the details. I hope this discussion is useful for those interested in developing best practices for OA implementation. best, Heather Morrison On Apr 8, 2015, at 9:14 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Jeroen - CC-BY license Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for profit-taking should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a multi-billion dollar industry (as well as a community effort relying largely on a gift economy), with some players earning profits in the millions (a billion for Elsevier), in the 40% profit range. There are other reasons to hesitate to use this license, but this is the one that OA advocates need to wake up and pay attention to. I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument. If, for whatever reason, I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article freely available. I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing unlimited distribution provided there is attribution. David David C Prosser PhD Executive Director, RLUK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7862 8436 Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586 www.rluk.ac.uk RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David Registered Office: Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU Registered Company no: 2733294 Registered Charity no: 1026543 On 8 Apr 2015, at 02:08, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Surely everyone on this list is aiming for the goal of global open access! But what do we think this means? Thanks to Jeroen for posting recently his wish list. In this post, I will point out how very different my perspective on open access is from Jeroen's, even though I think Jeroen and I are both fully in favour of global open access and transformative rather than traditional approaches. The purpose of this post is to suggest that the open access movement has now reached a point where it is useful to have such discussions about the specifics of where we think we should be heading. In addition to differences in individuals' perspectives, it seems quite likely that there will be disciplinary differences as well. Jeroen's post can be found here: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2015-April/003154.html Following is Jeroen's wish list items followed by my perspectives. Jeroen - fully Open Access Heather: yes, of course! Jeroen - online only Heather - OA works can be online only, but should not be restricted in this manner Jeroen - CC-BY license Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
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] Re: What is the GOAL?
Hi Heather OK, so let’s take your specific example. Every open access paper in PMC is mirrored in Europe PubMed Central. So our publisher not only has to get PMC switched off, but Europe PMC as well. Oh, and PMC Canada. I suspect that the moment that it is suspected that any publisher is trying to get all three sites shut down, through a massive lobbying operation on multiple national governments and private trusts (the funders of the three sites), somebody (and I would put money on Peter Murray Rust being first in line) will download the entire corpus and make it available. And there is nothing anybody can do to stop that somebody. The danger is greater when the CC-BY license is in the hands of a company that holds some or all of the rights under copyright. For example, if a fee is paid to Elsevier, Wiley, etc. to publish a work as CC-BY, there is nothing in the CC-BY license per se that would prevent the companies from reverting to All Rights Reserved or other more restrictive licenses. This could happen even if the author retains copyright, because author copyright retention can co-exist with transfer of virtually all rights to a publisher (some license-to-publish approaches are very much like this). Authors could in theory negotiate publishing contracts to prevent this; but don't expect the industry to develop this. Is this true? Legal experts will need to help me, but looking at the current CC-BY code I note (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode): Section 2 – Scope. 1. License grant. * Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: * reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and * produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. Once the paper has been offered under a CC-BY license that license is ‘irrevocable’. Does ‘irrevocable’ not mean what I think it does? Further, also under Scope: * 5. Downstream recipients. * Offer from the Licensor – Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License. * No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material. 5.B means again, once issued under a CC-BY license you can’t add new licensing terms on top. As I say, I’m not a licensing expert, but I can’t see the problem here. David On 8 Apr 2015, at 16:41, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: David, Thank you for your contribution. To summarize your argument, you are saying that CC-BY works cannot be enclosed because anyone can buy a copy and make it open access. Some flaws with this argument: Practical: let's imagine that every article in every journal listed in PubMedCentral were licensed CC-BY. A company with a desire for profit-making copies the lot, develops a cool value-added service at an attractive price point, sells the package - and advertising, too. This is a success; people use and advertise in this service, which erodes support for PMC and the journals listed there. The company becomes annoyed with PMC - a free public service competing with the private sector - and lobbies, successfully, for the removal of funding for PMC. Assuming all the articles remain CC-BY, yes, anyone could buy them up and make the works open access again - but the company can set the price. One could find other means to gather the articles; my advice is not to underestimate the work or cost. CC-BY does not include any obligation for downstream users to use the same license. There is nothing to stop this company from changing the works to a more restrictive license. CC-BY-SA, in this sense, is a less dangerous license. This is not intended as an endorsement of CC-BY-SA for open access. The danger is greater when the CC-BY license is in the hands of a company that holds some or all of the rights under copyright. For example, if a fee is paid to Elsevier, Wiley, etc. to publish a work as CC-BY, there is nothing in the CC-BY license per se that would prevent the companies from reverting to All Rights Reserved or other more restrictive licenses. This could happen even if the author retains copyright, because author copyright retention can co-exist with transfer of virtually all rights to a publisher (some license-to-publish approaches are very much like this). Authors could in theory negotiate publishing contracts to prevent this; but don't expect the industry to develop this.
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
Hi to all again, Many thanks, Heather, for your clear example. I think I have understood. Therefore, my previous mail with the many questions is no longer useful. Kind regards Didier Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 8 avr. 2015 à 17:41, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca a écrit : David, Thank you for your contribution. To summarize your argument, you are saying that CC-BY works cannot be enclosed because anyone can buy a copy and make it open access. Some flaws with this argument: Practical: let's imagine that every article in every journal listed in PubMedCentral were licensed CC-BY. A company with a desire for profit-making copies the lot, develops a cool value-added service at an attractive price point, sells the package - and advertising, too. This is a success; people use and advertise in this service, which erodes support for PMC and the journals listed there. The company becomes annoyed with PMC - a free public service competing with the private sector - and lobbies, successfully, for the removal of funding for PMC. Assuming all the articles remain CC-BY, yes, anyone could buy them up and make the works open access again - but the company can set the price. One could find other means to gather the articles; my advice is not to underestimate the work or cost. CC-BY does not include any obligation for downstream users to use the same license. There is nothing to stop this company from changing the works to a more restrictive license. CC-BY-SA, in this sense, is a less dangerous license. This is not intended as an endorsement of CC-BY-SA for open access. The danger is greater when the CC-BY license is in the hands of a company that holds some or all of the rights under copyright. For example, if a fee is paid to Elsevier, Wiley, etc. to publish a work as CC-BY, there is nothing in the CC-BY license per se that would prevent the companies from reverting to All Rights Reserved or other more restrictive licenses. This could happen even if the author retains copyright, because author copyright retention can co-exist with transfer of virtually all rights to a publisher (some license-to-publish approaches are very much like this). Authors could in theory negotiate publishing contracts to prevent this; but don't expect the industry to develop this. Thanks again for your contribution and another example that we in the OA movement are not fully in agreement on all of the details. I hope this discussion is useful for those interested in developing best practices for OA implementation. best, Heather Morrison On Apr 8, 2015, at 9:14 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Jeroen - CC-BY license Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for profit-taking should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a multi-billion dollar industry (as well as a community effort relying largely on a gift economy), with some players earning profits in the millions (a billion for Elsevier), in the 40% profit range. There are other reasons to hesitate to use this license, but this is the one that OA advocates need to wake up and pay attention to. I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument. If, for whatever reason, I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article freely available. I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing unlimited distribution provided there is attribution. David David C Prosser PhD Executive Director, RLUK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7862 8436 Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586 www.rluk.ac.uk RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David Registered Office: Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU Registered Company no: 2733294 Registered Charity no: 1026543 On 8 Apr 2015, at 02:08, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Surely everyone on this list is aiming for the goal of global open access! But what do we think this means? Thanks to Jeroen for posting recently his wish list. In this post, I will point out how very different my perspective on open access is from Jeroen's, even though I think Jeroen and I are both fully in favour of global open access and transformative rather than traditional approaches. The purpose of this post is to suggest that the open access movement has now reached a point where it is useful to have such discussions about the specifics of where we think we should be heading. In addition to differences in individuals' perspectives, it seems quite likely that there will be disciplinary differences as well. Jeroen's post can be found here:
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
Before we get trapped into the technical details, I think we must welcome the spirit of Jeroen's wisth list and of Heather's challenge. Thank you so much. CC-BY does have that kind of potential problem. The free software community saw that coming and invented copyleft. CC-BY-SA sort that out, I think. On 8 April 2015 at 09:06, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:04 PM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Jeroen - CC-BY license Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility of re-enclosure. ... I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument. If, for whatever reason, I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article freely available. I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing unlimited distribution provided there is attribution. David I completely agree with David. If HeatherM can show us that total enclosure has ever actually occurred we need to know. The conditions are almost inconceivable: * a commercial company encloses the *published* CC-BY article. It strips off the licence (thereby breaking the contract). * the world destroys or loses ALL other copies of the manuscript. It then forgets that this manuscript ever existed as CC-BY. Only then does the illegally enclosed object represent monopoly control. In the normal case there are always copies of the un-enclosed article available for free use, re-use, modification and redistribution P. [Far more serious is the following scenario which happens frequently enough to be really serious. A traditional toll-access publisher accepts payment from an author/funder for CC-BY licensing. It then publishes the manuscript without CC-BY and under a more (often completely) restrictive licence. Only the author/funder knows that the m/s should be CC-BY. Unless they publish this information (as Wellcome Trust and some libraries did last year) the m/s will remain closed and will continue to be resold. And early copies , before the discovery, will probably still circulate with All rights reserved. ] -- 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 -- Jacinto Dávila http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:04 PM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Jeroen - CC-BY license Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility of re-enclosure. ... I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument. If, for whatever reason, I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article freely available. I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing unlimited distribution provided there is attribution. David I completely agree with David. If HeatherM can show us that total enclosure has ever actually occurred we need to know. The conditions are almost inconceivable: * a commercial company encloses the *published* CC-BY article. It strips off the licence (thereby breaking the contract). * the world destroys or loses ALL other copies of the manuscript. It then forgets that this manuscript ever existed as CC-BY. Only then does the illegally enclosed object represent monopoly control. In the normal case there are always copies of the un-enclosed article available for free use, re-use, modification and redistribution P. [Far more serious is the following scenario which happens frequently enough to be really serious. A traditional toll-access publisher accepts payment from an author/funder for CC-BY licensing. It then publishes the manuscript without CC-BY and under a more (often completely) restrictive licence. Only the author/funder knows that the m/s should be CC-BY. Unless they publish this information (as Wellcome Trust and some libraries did last year) the m/s will remain closed and will continue to be resold. And early copies , before the discovery, will probably still circulate with All rights reserved. ] -- 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
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
Jeroen - CC-BY license Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for profit-taking should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a multi-billion dollar industry (as well as a community effort relying largely on a gift economy), with some players earning profits in the millions (a billion for Elsevier), in the 40% profit range. There are other reasons to hesitate to use this license, but this is the one that OA advocates need to wake up and pay attention to. I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument. If, for whatever reason, I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article freely available. I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing unlimited distribution provided there is attribution. David David C Prosser PhD Executive Director, RLUK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7862 8436 Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586 www.rluk.ac.uk RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David Registered Office: Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU Registered Company no: 2733294 Registered Charity no: 1026543 On 8 Apr 2015, at 02:08, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Surely everyone on this list is aiming for the goal of global open access! But what do we think this means? Thanks to Jeroen for posting recently his wish list. In this post, I will point out how very different my perspective on open access is from Jeroen's, even though I think Jeroen and I are both fully in favour of global open access and transformative rather than traditional approaches. The purpose of this post is to suggest that the open access movement has now reached a point where it is useful to have such discussions about the specifics of where we think we should be heading. In addition to differences in individuals' perspectives, it seems quite likely that there will be disciplinary differences as well. Jeroen's post can be found here: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2015-April/003154.html Following is Jeroen's wish list items followed by my perspectives. Jeroen - fully Open Access Heather: yes, of course! Jeroen - online only Heather - OA works can be online only, but should not be restricted in this manner Jeroen - CC-BY license Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for profit-taking should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a multi-billion dollar industry (as well as a community effort relying largely on a gift economy), with some players earning profits in the millions (a billion for Elsevier), in the 40% profit range. There are other reasons to hesitate to use this license, but this is the one that OA advocates need to wake up and pay attention to. I have written about this in my Creative Commons and Open Access Critique series: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html and I will be speaking on this topic next week in Washington at the Allen Press' Emerging Trends in Scholarly Publishing Seminar: http://allenpress.com/events/2015seminar Jeroen - authors retain copyright Heather - this doesn't really mean very much. With the subscription publishers' trend towards license-to-publish, author copyright retention is the norm, but the licenses themselves can be virtually identical to full copyright transfer. Jeroen - maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model like that at PeerJ) - APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries) Heather - robust system of OA publishing that does not rely on APCs. Firmly opposed to using research funds for APCs. Cancel the high-priced bundles of the big commercial scholarly publishers first, then use the savings to pay for OA. Jeroen - really international profile of editors/board (far beyond US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR) Heather - this makes more sense in some areas than others. There is universal knowledge (think physics principles) and local knowledge (consider Québec politics). There are advantages to regionally based publishing. These include the financial advantages of paying local rates in one's own currency and generating local jobs, and the community advantages of working with people you have a reasonable expectation of getting to know, who are based at institutions you know something about. I think that journal white lists are best handled locally. There is Qualis in Brazil (I gather), although this might need some cleaning up. In Canada we have a scholarly journal
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
hi David, On 2015-04-08, at 12:47 PM, David Prosser wrote: Hi Heather OK, so let’s take your specific example. Every open access paper in PMC is mirrored in Europe PubMed Central. So our publisher not only has to get PMC switched off, but Europe PMC as well. Oh, and PMC Canada. I suspect that the moment that it is suspected that any publisher is trying to get all three sites shut down, through a massive lobbying operation on multiple national governments and private trusts (the funders of the three sites), somebody (and I would put money on Peter Murray Rust being first in line) will download the entire corpus and make it available. And there is nothing anybody can do to stop that somebody. PMC-International is a very good thing for the future of open access, and I advise all countries to set up mirror sites and actively participate in PMC-International. There is nothing to stop anyone from lobbying in more than one country or region at a time. The push for austerity / structural adjustment / privatization of public services over recent decades has been global in scope. Right wing governments in North America are very receptive to arguments for cuts to public services and privatization of public services. I cannot speak for Europe except to note that at least a few countries (Greece, Spain, UK) either are going through, or have recently gone through, austerity measures. In this scenario (lobbying to remove funding for PMC) someone downloading the corpus for re-release as open access would be a good thing. I have not investigated the cost of providing an equivalent service. Can anyone advise as to the costs and/or resources necessary for an individual downloading all of PMC to provide OA services to the world, or how this might work? My perspective is that if most works are licensing under the NIH fair-use public access approach rather than CC-BY this would avoid the temptation to re-enclose, and that is much simpler than trying to re-create the system. The danger is greater when the CC-BY license is in the hands of a company that holds some or all of the rights under copyright. For example, if a fee is paid to Elsevier, Wiley, etc. to publish a work as CC-BY, there is nothing in the CC-BY license per se that would prevent the companies from reverting to All Rights Reserved or other more restrictive licenses. This could happen even if the author retains copyright, because author copyright retention can co-exist with transfer of virtually all rights to a publisher (some license-to-publish approaches are very much like this). Authors could in theory negotiate publishing contracts to prevent this; but don't expect the industry to develop this. Is this true? Legal experts will need to help me, but looking at the current CC-BY code I note (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode): Section 2 – Scope. 1. License grant. * Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: * reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and * produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. Once the paper has been offered under a CC-BY license that license is ‘irrevocable’. Does ‘irrevocable’ not mean what I think it does? Further, also under Scope: The License is granted by the Licensor. Once the licensee has a copy of a CC-BY licensed work, the license is irrevocable. However, the Licensor has every right to change their mind, take down the CC-BY licensed work and replace it with a work with a more restrictive license. To understand whether a publisher has the rights of the Licensor, it is necessary to consider the contract (written or implied) between author and publisher. I'm not a lawyer either but before going into academia, I had more than a decade's experience as a professional librarian negotiating contracts (including terms and conditions) for licensed resources for multiple libraries at provincial and sometimes national levels. I do have some training in this, and my experience is that this work requires some knowledge of how contracts works (much of the basics here were covered in the CLIR/DLF model license long ago), but the knowledge of how people buy, sell, and use electronic resources is also essential. * 5. Downstream recipients. * Offer from the Licensor – Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License. * No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
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;
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
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
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
Hi all, Note. It seems that Heather Morrison and I wrote our posts simultaneously. You'll find that our explanations are quite similar (a good thing for the both of us). - - - - - - - To determine what a CC license allows (or forbids) one to do, one has to carefully distinguish between the Licensor (the one who holds the rights to the work) and the Licensee (everyone else, called Downstream recipients, or You in the CC license code). The CC licence is indeed irrevocable, meaning that even the rights holder can't cancel it. But it's also non-exclusive, meaning that the rights holder can simultaneously distribute the work under different conditions and/or restrictions, even without using any user license. For instance, he or she may sell the work without mentioning the existence of the CC license, because Attribution (and other conditions) apply only to those who obtain rights as CC Licensees. Note that the rights holder can be the author, or any third party (e.g. a publisher) to which the author has transferred copyright or granted publishing rights. This brings us back to two situations mentioned in this forum before the actual discussion. 1. Third parties reselling a CC BY work (without the right holder authorization). This is legal, but mentioning that the work is under a CC BY licence is required by the Attribution condition, and a hyperlink to the original (no doubt OA) must be provided. The only ways to make this a business practice is through customer delusion (hoping that they don't understand what a CC license is and/or that they are too lazy to look for a free copy), or by plain violation of the license conditions. This has happened and been reported in this forum. 2. Rights holders (for instance, publishers having obtained exclusive rights) deciding at some time to offer the same work but now under different conditions. The CC BY license is still in force, but the publisher is not required to display it (not being the Licensee mentioned in the CC License, it's not bound by its conditions). This is one of the scenarios envisioned by Heather Morrison. I'm not aware that this happened, and don't think it's likely to happen. If copies of the work are available elsewhere, this is identical to situation #1. In the worst case, one person would have to buy a copy and put it online (in a repository, for instance) with the CC license. Finally, I think it's worth repeating that depositing in repositories even CC BY articles is the best way to avoid these situations. Just look at the prominence of OA versions in Google Scholar research results. People will find them. Marc Couture -Message d'origine- De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de David Prosser Envoyé : 8 avril 2015 12:47 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL? Hi Heather OK, so let's take your specific example. Every open access paper in PMC is mirrored in Europe PubMed Central. So our publisher not only has to get PMC switched off, but Europe PMC as well. Oh, and PMC Canada. I suspect that the moment that it is suspected that any publisher is trying to get all three sites shut down, through a massive lobbying operation on multiple national governments and private trusts (the funders of the three sites), somebody (and I would put money on Peter Murray Rust being first in line) will download the entire corpus and make it available. And there is nothing anybody can do to stop that somebody. The danger is greater when the CC-BY license is in the hands of a company that holds some or all of the rights under copyright. For example, if a fee is paid to Elsevier, Wiley, etc. to publish a work as CC-BY, there is nothing in the CC-BY license per se that would prevent the companies from reverting to All Rights Reserved or other more restrictive licenses. This could happen even if the author retains copyright, because author copyright retention can co-exist with transfer of virtually all rights to a publisher (some license-to-publish approaches are very much like this). Authors could in theory negotiate publishing contracts to prevent this; but don't expect the industry to develop this. Is this true? Legal experts will need to help me, but looking at the current CC-BY code I note (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode): Section 2 - Scope. 1. License grant. * Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: * reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and * produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. Once the paper has been offered under a CC-BY license that license is 'irrevocable'. Does 'irrevocable' not mean what I think it does
[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?
I’m fast moving into areas that I really have no expertise in and so apologies to those on the list much more knowledgeable than I. But I was struck by this point that Heather made: The License is granted by the Licensor. Once the licensee has a copy of a CC-BY licensed work, the license is irrevocable. However, the Licensor has every right to change their mind, take down the CC-BY licensed work and replace it with a work with a more restrictive license. To understand whether a publisher has the rights of the Licensor, it is necessary to consider the contract (written or implied) between author and publisher. So far, so good. But surely the ‘work’ that is replacing the CC-BY work has to be a new version. Surely you can’t take down a CC-BY version of a paper, relabel it as 'All Rights Reserved' and repost it. In our PMC example, the person shutting PMC down would have to get the license holders of all the CC-BY content to provide new version of the papers before they could reissue them with new restrictive licenses. Is that likely? From the CC FAQs (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_change_the_license_terms_or_conditions.3F): What if I change my mind about using a CC license? CC licenses are not revocable. Once something has been published under a CC license, licensees may continue using it according to the license terms for the duration of applicable copyright and similar rights. As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms. While you cannot revoke the license, CC licenses do provide a mechanismhttps://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_can_I_do_if_I_offer_my_work_under_a_Creative_Commons_license_and_I_do_not_like_the_way_someone_uses_my_work.3F for licensors to ask that others using their material remove the attribution information. You should think carefully before choosing a Creative Commons licensehttps://wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees. David On 8 Apr 2015, at 19:26, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: hi David, On 2015-04-08, at 12:47 PM, David Prosser wrote: Hi Heather OK, so let’s take your specific example. Every open access paper in PMC is mirrored in Europe PubMed Central. So our publisher not only has to get PMC switched off, but Europe PMC as well. Oh, and PMC Canada. I suspect that the moment that it is suspected that any publisher is trying to get all three sites shut down, through a massive lobbying operation on multiple national governments and private trusts (the funders of the three sites), somebody (and I would put money on Peter Murray Rust being first in line) will download the entire corpus and make it available. And there is nothing anybody can do to stop that somebody. PMC-International is a very good thing for the future of open access, and I advise all countries to set up mirror sites and actively participate in PMC-International. There is nothing to stop anyone from lobbying in more than one country or region at a time. The push for austerity / structural adjustment / privatization of public services over recent decades has been global in scope. Right wing governments in North America are very receptive to arguments for cuts to public services and privatization of public services. I cannot speak for Europe except to note that at least a few countries (Greece, Spain, UK) either are going through, or have recently gone through, austerity measures. In this scenario (lobbying to remove funding for PMC) someone downloading the corpus for re-release as open access would be a good thing. I have not investigated the cost of providing an equivalent service. Can anyone advise as to the costs and/or resources necessary for an individual downloading all of PMC to provide OA services to the world, or how this might work? My perspective is that if most works are licensing under the NIH fair-use public access approach rather than CC-BY this would avoid the temptation to re-enclose, and that is much simpler than trying to re-create the system. The danger is greater when the CC-BY license is in the hands of a company that holds some or all of the rights under copyright. For example, if a fee is paid to Elsevier, Wiley, etc. to publish a work as CC-BY, there is nothing in the CC-BY license per se that would prevent the companies from reverting to All Rights Reserved or other more restrictive licenses. This could happen even if the author retains copyright, because author copyright retention can co-exist with transfer of virtually all rights to a publisher (some license-to-publish approaches are very much like this). Authors could in theory negotiate publishing contracts to prevent this; but don't expect the industry to develop this. Is this true? Legal experts
