On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:12:15AM +0000, Angela Daly wrote:
I would advocate a CC-BY-NC-ND licence for the following reasons:
Sorry, but I object. A journal like JoPP can't have anything short of a license that qualifies as Free Culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_Free_Cultural_Works#.22Free_cult... Anything more restrictive than that would fall short of the ethos of the journal (peer production!), in my humble opinion. (Also, we already had this discussion, if memory serves.) If we want to stay as liberal as possible, the best implementation of what is called public domain in some countries around the world is the CC0 license, already mentioned in this thread. If we want to encourage the further sharing of scientific works that might reuse papers published on JoPP, than CC-BY-SA 4.0 is the obvious choice. Regarding the risk of potential misrepresentation of thought works, CC-BY-SA already offers ample protections. No matter what the decision will be, a note of warning: you cannot *retroactively* stick a license on papers published on JoPP without consent by the individual authors. And for what is worth, personally, I would object to articles that have my name on it to be on JoPP with a NC/ND license (which is not a big deal, only a single article up to now). I already have enough articles published by "ordinary" publishing houses under very restrictive licenses, paywalls and what not. For my contributions to JoPP, I really want them to be free as in Free Culture. I'm sorry if I come out as party pooper here, but I really care about licensing choices. 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 »