Hi all chiming in from the "docle far niente" on the license issue I am also very strongly opposed to restrictive licences as CC-BY-NC-ND which are in actual fact worse and more limiting than good old copyright. I've been trying to send this message for a while, but for some reasons my computer and my email account don't play nicely currently. So this might be reiterating a few statements made already If we want to go CC, then CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are the most sensible options. Wikipedia have chosen the CC-BY-SA license, where the SA element essentially keeps content free and discourages commercial use (by *removing* commercial protection). I do not concur with Angela that ND is needed for the integrity of the work, as integrity is already protected by copyright (to which a CC license is an addendum) I do not concur with Angela that NC is needed so "no-one can make a profit out of the articles" ... NC signals that we don't want that, but it does not protect. Furthermore, NC would prevent us from coming up with some scheme to rise money for server costs etc. (mind you: even fundraising is regarded as commercial in the interpretation of NC!) A public domain dedication (PD) is much more radical. Going public domain is more radical and could invite users to not attribute work -- whereas attribution (being cited) is one of the main "currencies" in the academic field. Creative Commons have developed the CC0 "dedication" to mark that a work is deliberately put into the public domain (most often used for open government data), and the PD, a mark to "certify" that something is in de public domain; see https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/. Angela is right that the public domain situation is legally unclear. I would personally prefer the CC-BY-SA license for the reasons stated above; second best is CC-BY Best / Peter Disclosure: I have worked for Creative Commons Netherlands in 2007-2009 and I am a founding member of the Communia association ( https://www.communia-association.org/) On 19 August 2017 at 04:50, Mathieu ONeil <[email protected]> wrote:
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 <[email protected]> on behalf of Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> *Sent:* Saturday, August 19, 2017 11:33 *To:* [email protected] *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 Openness | About | eLife <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 License | PLOS <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 - About - Our Publications <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 . [email protected] . 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 [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
_______________________________________________ JoPP-Public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public