On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Carlos Monterrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Here is the proposed SM for today's blog post regarding the new open access > license from the International Association of Scientific, Technical & > Medical Publishers. Thanks for reviewing: > > Blog post: > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/07/new-open-licenses-arent-so-open/ > > SM calendar: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Calendar#August_4-August_10 > > New “open” licenses aren’t so open > > t: WMF joins 55 other open access groups in protesting “open” licenses that > aren’t actually open: > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/07/new-open-licenses-arent-so-open/ Suggest to write out WMF, and drop the "other" (even though it's in the blog post):
Wikimedia Foundation joins 55 open access groups in protesting “open” licenses that aren’t actually open: > > t: See why the WMF is against the latest licenses by the Association of > Scientific, Technical & Medical > Publishers:https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/07/new-open-licenses-arent-so-open/ > Doesn't mention "open"... Suggest this instead, as followup tweet from @wikipedia: Open access scholarship enriches Wikipedia, but the "open access" licenses proposed by @STMAssoc trade group won't: > t: See why this new open access license fails to meet the standards set by > the Freedom and Open Knowledge > Definition:https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/07/new-open-licenses-arent-so-open/ This would be more correct (but I prefer the preceding tweets anyway): See why these new "open access' licenses fail to meet the standards set by the Freedom and Open Knowledge Definitions: > > f/g: The new “open access” license by the International Association of > Scientific Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) fails to meet the basic > standards set out by the Freedom Definition and the Open Knowledge > Definition. The Wikimedia Foundation joins the Public Library of Science, > Open Knowledge and many other groups in urging STM to withdraw these > licenses. > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/07/new-open-licenses-arent-so-open/ > With some fixes and tweaks: The so called “open access” licenses proposed by STM, a trade association of academic publishing companies, fail to meet the basic standards set out by the Freedom Definition and the Open Knowledge Definition. The Wikimedia Foundation joins the Public Library of Science, Open Knowledge and many other groups in urging STM to withdraw these licenses. -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ Social-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
