I have absolutely no voice in this community was just lurking the mailing list out of curiosity, but I am astonished by this thread....
So, having just gone through the list archive, seems a majority wanted CC0, but could live with CC-BY-SA.
This to me is really strange, is there any reason one would not want to preserve its community and to allow its content to be appropriated indifferently by corporate media outlets, who would then be able to distort its intention ... This seems to me as a religion of open data, rather than a structured thought, to the benefit of critical thinking and alternatives. The aim of opening our sources is to facilitate transmission of ideas and content, but we absolutely want to preserve the integrity of our work and this means acknowledging the context and the reasons that contributed to the origins of the work, preserving its integrity and citing sources. There are many licenses that prevent derivatives and some that are particularly oriented towards protecting and transmitting intellectual content, I often use the free art license, that allows derivatives but with citation of sources and preservation of integrity of the content. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Free-Art-L-v1.3 The GNU project is for example quite protective of their written and creative content and recommends https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ (which is even more restrictive than free art license) that specifically states the needs for attribution and no derivatives. Clear licensing can even allow for more freedom, for example imagining an experimental future for JOPP where participation would be allowed and comments could be included in the article, even modifying the original article itself. It would then be even more important to have access to an original version of the text as submitted, and some sort of diff or historical view...
b. technically, the consequence is that the author retains ALL publishing rights -- or to be more precise, is free from any publishing restrictions -- just like all other members of the general public.
Indeed this means that Elon Musk could take part of an article (without citing its sources) transform it and sell it to wired magazine, is this really necessary? We should not confuse liberalism and free speech, I do not think we are all equal in this world and I really think we need to preserve critical publications from appropriation abuse and distortion. xxn.