Hi all, (I've changed the subject to something more meaningful.) On 19/08/17 17:51, maxigas wrote:
Heh, I would argue for CC0 for similar reasons that Andreas argues for CC-BY-SA. I don't think academics today have to (or empirical are) relying on the copyright regime to enforce attribution (BY) or the misrepresentation of their work (SA) -- these are tools that publishers use to extort money from academics and other consumers. Academics have their own culture, ethics and even legal regulations to address problems of non-attribution (e.g. plagiarism) and misrepresentation (for instance straw man arguments), and these should be adequate to address the matter. I would use CC0 simply to ensure that the journal content is available to readers without relying on the copyright regime as little as possible. To summarise: I argue that respect for and enforcement of IP rights contributes to the proletarisation of academic labour much more than defends against it. Therefore, we should dismantle it.
I also agree with Stefan Meretz that our PD/CC0 policy is one of the things that sets JoPP apart from other open access journals, which buy into the more restrictive and more pro-IP regimes offered by Creative Commons.
I agree with maxigas on both points. I also strongly feel that we should choose CC0 in order to preserve the spirit and (almost) the letter of the current "license" note, which is clearly visible on the bottom of every page: "All the contents of this journal are in the public domain." Retroactively changing this PD licensing to something much more restrictively (such as ShareAlike or even "no commercial use allowed") would be highly unfair to both authors and readers. On 19/08/17 22:18, Vasilis Kostakis wrote:
Why not using one license (say CC0) as default while offering the option for a second one (say CC-BY-SA)?
Did authors ever complain, or even refuse to submit, because of the PD licensing? If yes, I'd agree that offering them one or two other free licenses (CC-BY and CC-BY-SA) would be a reasonable alternative. As long as nobody complains (and I can't remember that anyone did), I'd say: keep it simple and understandable by sticking with PD/CC0 for all texts. Best regards Christian -- |--------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- [email protected] --------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Commonsbasierte Produktion: www.keimform.de/2016/eine-welt-in-der-alle/ | Why Production No Longer Worries Us: www.keimform.de/2013/free-sources-1/ |------------------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x980FA6ED -- That an author, at common law, has a property in his manuscript, and may obtain redress against any one who deprives him of it, cannot be doubted; but this is a very different right from that which asserts a perpetual and exclusive property in the future publication of the work, after the author shall have published it to the world. -- Wheaton v. Peters, 1832