I am not an expert on copyright, but feel strongly about some implications of what we are discussing. To outline briefly my politics: As a Marxist, I am all for open access, but find some of the free culture positions rather problematic, particularly those ones that are rooted in liberal theory (Stallman, Lessig, Benkler etc).

One of these positions is the idea that academic should not only make available their work for free, but also make it available in a format does not respect authors rights in that it does not care about attribution. In a neoliberal climate that massively devalues academic labour it is not a wise strategy to devalue academic labour even further and to do so voluntarily.  Therefore I do not support copyright politics, that contribute to new levels of proletaristion of academic  labour.

But this is not just about politics, it also about the future orientation of this journal. I would be very hesitant to publish in a journal that invites and encourages the use of my labour without appropriation. And I have a feeling I am not the only academic with such a view. So to go for PD, and for that matter for CC0 has imho the long-term effect that academics will stay away from JOPP and that the reputation of JOPP as a journal with high-quality academic rigour could seriously suffer.

My preference would be CC-BY-SA

best,
Andreas

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:44 AM, <jopp-public-request@lists.ourproject.org> wrote:
Send JoPP-Public mailing list submissions to
        jopp-public@lists.ourproject.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        jopp-public-request@lists.ourproject.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        jopp-public-owner@lists.ourproject.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of JoPP-Public digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer
      Production (Stefan Meretz)
   2. Re: Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer
      Production (Peter Troxler)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 11:21:34 +0200
From: Stefan Meretz <stefan@meretz.de>
To: jopp-public@lists.ourproject.org
Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ:
        Journal of Peer Production
Message-ID: <9855a97c-0e27-f84a-664f-4ef72ee077ec@meretz.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

I completely agree with Stefano. I want to add an explanation to Mathieu:

Am 19.08.2017 um 04:50 schrieb Mathieu ONeil:
> 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?)

If the purpose is to prevent commercial use and simultaneouly keep
freedom of sharing, then CC BY-SA, the most restrictive free cultural
license, is the best choice, NOT NC. Why? Share-alike means that the
commercial user itself has to use SA which conficts with keeping content
scarce to make money of it (especially when published offline). NC
explicitly prevents commercial use but at the same time sharing in a lot
of areas. And commercial use is a wide notion which applies to books as
well as to blogs with adds on it.

Concluding, I would prefer CC0, since I find commercial use okay beause
it spreads content, and thats my aim. We live in capitalism, and thats
the way it goes. Second best is CC-BY. Third would be CC BY-SA.
Everything below that is neither useful nor acceptable - for me :-)

Best,
Stefan

--
Start here: www.meretz.de
OpenPGP-ID: 0x1D4BB160



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 11:15:17 +0200
From: Peter Troxler <trox@fabfolk.com>
To: "Journal of Peer Production's general and public list"
        <jopp-public@lists.ourproject.org>
Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ:
        Journal of Peer Production
Message-ID:
        <CAH-wfc1copB_0v4o5rhjSc47kPx6dMP+Y-fYQ_A5SUa_nruGFg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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 <mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au> 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 <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
> 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 . 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public@lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/attachments/20170819/223bbeee/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
JoPP-Public mailing list
JoPP-Public@lists.ourproject.org
JoPP: http://www.peerproduction.org

------------------------------

End of JoPP-Public Digest, Vol 63, Issue 17
*******************************************