On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
This sort of insistence on One Special License is exactly what is
limiting the adoption of open access.
Really? Any evidence? I'd welcome it if your definition of open access
found universal acceptance. Would be a great
At the start of 2014 the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
(OASPA), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open
Access Journals (DOAJ) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
published a minimum set of criteria for journals and publishers to be
This sort of insistence on One Special License is exactly what is limiting the
adoption of open access.
Really? Any evidence? I'd welcome it if your definition of open access found
universal acceptance. Would be a great step forward.
Jan Velterop
On 22 Jun 2015, at 12:34, Stephen Downes
Hiya,
Please note that I am not proposing that one specific license be adopted.
Different open access initiatives have different needs; the evidence for this
is that Creative Commons developed a suite of licenses, and that a significant
number of them (arguably a majority) have opted for a
