Steve,
I wasn't clear. The 'similarity' refers to the idea of a repository for
depositing preprints, as opposed to the published version of record. That's
all. Don't read too much in the example. ArXiv allows CC-BY-NC-SA, which I
don't advocate. But arXiv is just an example I had in mind. If Ep
, it is good to see this proposal appear as a way of testing out how the
decision-makers will react.
Fred Friend
http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk
From: Jan Velterop
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:15 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: CC-BY in
Jan, What similarities with arXiv are you referring to? Arxiv allows an author
to attach specific CC licences (two are allowable); EPrints presents the author
with this option at deposit. But it is not mandated, and how commonly is this
option taken by authors, in arXiv or any other repository?
Hopefully germane to this (developing) position, I've pushed for a CC-BY
use licence on all content exposed through the soon to be launched Research
Portal/IR at QUB. The leverage provided by RCUK's strong position on this
is at least one positive during what has been a difficult summer for policy
Maybe some publication repositories who would be ready to play the game, at
institutional, national or thematic level, backed up by eminent and open (!)
champions of the cause.
Laurent
Le 10 oct. 2012 à 13:15, Jan Velterop a écrit :
> The only thing I'm not clear about is who the "we all" are w
Peter,
It would simplify things a lot.
So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final
manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence,
in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication.
This has many similarities w
Me to - this is the fundamental blocker when we try to explore full text
content exchange between repositories.
Jo
On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Laurent Romary wrote:
> I would definitely support this.
> Laurent
>
> Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct
I would definitely support this.
Laurent
Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
> There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan
> Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copy
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
> There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from
> Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright
> on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article,
> in an open reposit
[Continuing the cross-posting as I think this is very impotrtant.]
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
> There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from
> Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright
> on the manuscript version,
Jan Velterop wrote:
>
> We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who
> intrinsically had copyright
> on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in
> an open repository
> irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then t
On 9 Oct 2012, at 15:50, Ross Mounce wrote:
[snip]
>
> Repositories cannot attach CC-BY licenses because most publishers still
> insist on copyright transfer. (Global Green OA will put an end to this, but
> not if it waits for CC-BY first.)
>
> I agree with the first half of the sentence BU
12 matches
Mail list logo
