Hi Zack, all


OK, now I remember why I always try to stay out of license discussions.. :-)


(FWIW: IMHO there is a big difference between massively multiple-authored WP and single or small-group authored research articles, but whatever.)


To sum up: one license (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 AU) does not allow commercial use or derivatives (better for authors?), the other (CC BY 4.0) does (better for the Cause?)


What do others think?


cheers


Mathieu


=====================================================

KEY POINTS BELOW:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

=====================================================


Angela argues for https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/au/

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Australia (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 AU)

You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
Non-Commercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.


Zack argues for https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.




From: JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces@lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 11:33
To: jopp-public@lists.ourproject.org
Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production
 
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:56:19AM +0000, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
> This may be a silly question but I wonder if there is a difference
> between the moral rights (as Angela said) of the author of computer
> code which is reused and those of the author of thoughts/words?

Wikipedia --- words, not code --- license is CC-BY-SA. The whole Free
Culture movement is not about code, even though it clearly got
inspiration from it.

Also, very high profile examples of open access journals that have
adopted Free Culture licenses abound, e.g.,

- https://elifesciences.org/about/openness
elifesciences.org
We believe that open access to research findings and associated data has the potential to revolutionise the scientific enterprise


- https://www.plos.org/license
www.plos.org
Appropriate attribution can be provided by simply citing the original article (e.g., Huntingtin Interacting Proteins Are Genetic Modifiers of Neurodegeneration.


- https://peerj.com/about/publications/
peerj.com
PeerJ is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal, whilst PeerJ Preprints is a venue for rapid communication of results.



having a bottom up journal that has "peer production" in its name do
anything short of that would be very weird.

Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . zack@upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o
Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director  . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

_______________________________________________
JoPP-Public mailing list
JoPP-Public@lists.ourproject.org
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public