OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed at
the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that only
papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access. And
yet millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Richard Poynder wrote:
> OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed
> at the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that
> only papers with a CC BY licence attached can be
Some open access advocates do equate OA with the CC-BY license, but not all of
us. My perspective is that pushing for ubiquitous CC-BY is a major strategic
error for the OA movement. Key arguments:
Granting blanket downstream commercial re-use rights allows for downstream toll
access whether
** Apologies for cross-posting **
Dear all,
Göttingen State and University Library (SUB Göttingen) is engaged in
several national and international projects developing of
infrastructures and services for electronic publishing and the
implementation of Open Access. In this context we are
Personally, yes I do Paul. Indeed, I also agree with Heather Morrison that
insisting on the use of CC BY is a strategic error on the part of the OA
movement, and I hope to publish a somewhat longer piece arguing as much in
the near future.
Richard Poynder
On 23 Jan 2017 12:21, "Paul THIRION"
Marc has a good point on the NC character.
Does intermediation counts? For example, Google presents millions of papers on
its search results pages and these papers contribute as fodder to Google's
$2.18 million net after taxes profit per hour (the vast majority of these
profits are from
Forwarding from SPARC-OAForum.
From: Rick Anderson [mailto:rick.ander...@utah.edu]
Sent: 23 January 2017 16:03
To: richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; sparc-oafo...@arl.org
Subject: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] How much of the content in open
repositories is able to meet the definition
Hi all,
Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here.
I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such :
- I don't equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I'm a little bit
tired of discussions about what "being OA" means.
- I work to help increase the proportion of
Stephen Downes wrote :
"From the perspective of a person wishing to access content, a work that is
CC-by, but which requires payment to access, is not free at all"
I find this interpretation a bit extreme, considering that:
- The CC BY work for which payment is required must be attributed, and
To state the obvious: Google searches are not limited to Creative Commons
licensed works.
If people could prevent search engines from searching things simply by not
applying a CC license allowing for commercial terms, that would create a new
set of problems that could not be solved by people
Thank you for raising the question of educational use, Marc.
One reason authors and funders may prefer licenses with non-commercial terms is
specifically to avoid giving rights to for-profit firms in the educational
sector, such as for-profit colleges, universities, and vendors of for-profit
> Some open access advocates do equate OA with the CC-BY license, but not all
> of us. My perspective is that pushing for ubiquitous CC-BY is a major
> strategic error for the OA movement.
I also have been arguing that CC-by-NC ought to be considered equally
acceptable. Open access licenses
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
> Thanks Marc this is helpful info although these links do not work.
>
> An important related issue is a tendency towards copyright expansion in
> the form of seeking to define linking under copyright. One
I rather like the ‘How open is it?’ tool that approaches this as a spectrum:
http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/
I may be quite ‘hard line’, but I acknowledge that by moving along the spectrum
a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open - and more
open is better
With all due respect to the people who created and shared the "how open is it"
spectrum tool, I find some of the underlying assumptions to be problematic.
For example the extreme of closed access assumes that having to pay
subscriptions, membership, pay per view etc. is the far end of closed.
Hi all,
Éric wonders if Google infringes copyright (or violates the licence) when
displaying CC BY-NC papers in its search results pages.
As these pages only contain basic bibliographical data, very short excerpts and
hyperlinks, I would think that this "use" falls either outside of copyright
Thanks Marc this is helpful info although these links do not work.
An important related issue is a tendency towards copyright expansion in the
form of seeking to define linking under copyright. One manifestation of this
was the EU proposal of a "link tax", as covered by Open Media here:
Hi Marc,
You say:
"I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such:
I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit
tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means."
I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps
not you, but OA
18 matches
Mail list logo