Hi all A French colleague inquired whether JoPP was archived in any databases including the "easier to get into" Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). This seems like a pretty good fit for us. I checked it out and it does not seem too bad so I'm willing to give it a go. https://doaj.org/application/new However there are a few questions I'm not sure about. I've copied them all below but the most important issues IMO are PDFs and copyright. PDF We used to have a PDF generator for articles. This broke and was meant to be repaired...? This absence limits our ability to be picked up by search engines and archived in other databases. @Peter (and maxigas): is there a solution in sight? COPYRIGHT PDFs would feature this text: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" Now the only indication we have about copyright is "All the contents of this journal are in the public domain" (on the front page) which is a bit vague. So should we change this text to the CC licence? Any reason not to? Finally there are some questions at the end about author ownership - I assume we give all rights to authors? @Our legal experts (Angela, Steve...): any thoughts on this? cheers Mathieu SEE QUESTION AND POSSIBLE ANSWERS BELOW Publisher => Self-published? Platform, Host or Aggregator => Peter? What digital archiving policy does the journal use? => No policy in place? Does the journal allow software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)? => No? Which article identifiers does the journal use? => None? DOI Handles ARK Please indicate which formats of full text are available * PDF HTML ePUB XML Other What is the URL for the journal's Open Access statement? Does the journal embed or display simple machine-readable CC licensing information in its articles? Yes No Copyright and Permissions Copyright & Licensing help 52) Does the journal allow the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions? * Yes No Other 54) Will the journal allow the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions?
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:37:40AM +0000, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
PDFs would feature this text:
"This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License"
Now the only indication we have about copyright is "All the contents of this journal are in the public domain" (on the front page) which is a bit vague.
So should we change this text to the CC licence? Any reason not to?
I, for one thing, would object to that change on the basis that the mentioned license is *not* a Free Culture licenses (not all CC licenses are; see https://creativecommons.org/freeworks ). If we want to go to for CC license, we should go for something like CC BY (AKA "attribution"), and specifically avoid any "non commercial" or "non derivative" variant. While we are at it, version 4.0 of the CC licenses are generally much better than 3.0 that are suggested above. Finally, it is actually not true that "public domain" is a vague formulation, but it is true that it might not be appropriate for JOPP, because most europeans, and others, will not be allowed to put their works in "real" public domain (in several countries around the world you cannot waive moral rights). The closest approximation to that we can go for is CC0: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ , which waives all waivable rights, and fallbacks to a very broad public license where that is not possible. Sorry for the license lawyering :-), but this kind of choices will have an impact on our target public in free culture/free software circles, so we should think carefully about them. 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 »
Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> writes:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:37:40AM +0000, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
PDFs would feature this text:
"This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License"
Now the only indication we have about copyright is "All the contents of this journal are in the public domain" (on the front page) which is a bit vague.
So should we change this text to the CC licence? Any reason not to?
I, for one thing, would object to that change on the basis that the mentioned license is *not* a Free Culture licenses (not all CC licenses are; see https://creativecommons.org/freeworks ). If we want to go to for CC license, we should go for something like CC BY (AKA "attribution"), and specifically avoid any "non commercial" or "non derivative" variant.
While we are at it, version 4.0 of the CC licenses are generally much better than 3.0 that are suggested above.
Finally, it is actually not true that "public domain" is a vague formulation, but it is true that it might not be appropriate for JOPP, because most europeans, and others, will not be allowed to put their works in "real" public domain (in several countries around the world you cannot waive moral rights). The closest approximation to that we can go for is CC0: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ , which waives all waivable rights, and fallbacks to a very broad public license where that is not possible.
Happy to hear we agree that CC0 is the only acceptable CC licence for JoPP. :-) The only good copyright is the dead copyright! >-[ I like to tell people that they can download articles from JoPP and publish them under their name is that is what they really want to do (even if I am not sure that is really the case)...
Sorry for the license lawyering :-), but this kind of choices will have an impact on our target public in free culture/free software circles, so we should think carefully about them.
+1 -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://relay70.metatron.ai/ In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub http://custodians.online Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don't let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the ❀❀❀❀❀ - clean the volcanoes.
Mathieu ONeil <[email protected]> writes:
Hi all
A French colleague inquired whether JoPP was archived in any databases including the "easier to get into" Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). This seems like a pretty good fit for us. I checked it out and it does not seem too bad so I'm willing to give it a go.
https://doaj.org/application/new
However there are a few questions I'm not sure about. I've copied them all below but the most important issues IMO are PDFs and copyright.
We used to have a PDF generator for articles. This broke and was meant to be repaired...? This absence limits our ability to be picked up by search engines and archived in other databases.
@Peter (and maxigas): is there a solution in sight?
This is absolutely my sin, I signed up for testing and recommending a PDF renderer plugin for Wordpress and I never got around to put in the necessary work. I would also like JoPP to be listed in databases so I will try to do this soonish, but in order not to stress myself I would say "this year".
COPYRIGHT
PDFs would feature this text:
"This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License"
Now the only indication we have about copyright is "All the contents of this journal are in the public domain" (on the front page) which is a bit vague.
It is *somewhat* vague, but in some jurisdictions it is an existing and precisely defined legal category: Before 1988 in the US, works could be easily given into the public domain by just releasing it without an explicit Copyright notice. With the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (and the earlier Copyright Act of 1976, which went into effect in 1978), all works were by default copyright protected and needed to be actively given into public domain by a waiver statement/anti-copyright notice.^[44]^[45] Not all legal systems have processes for reliably donating works to the public domain, e.g. civil law of continental Europe.^[citation needed] This may even "effectively prohibit any attempt by copyright owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights".^[46] ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain I really like that JoPP is *not* subscribed to the typical Creative Commons licencing regimes because I am against copyrights alltogether, at least for scholarly works. For myself, it is a core value of JoPP that distinguishes this journal from other projects in the "open science" and "open access" field. Most other projects legitimise the existing licencing regime by putting more specific licences on their content. Public domain is a bit like WTFPL (Do What the Fuck You Want To Public License). I think that is an important message to send. I suggest that if we need a concrete licence than we go with the recommendation of the Open Knowledge Foundation in this regard: In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation recommends the Creative Commons CC0 license to dedicate content to the public domain,^[52]^[53] and the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL) for data.^[54]
So should we change this text to the CC licence? Any reason not to?
See above -- I am very much against licencing content under "CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License", but I would be happy with CC0.
Finally there are some questions at the end about author ownership - I assume we give all rights to authors? @Our legal experts (Angela, Steve...): any thoughts on this?
I would be interested about legal opinions on this too! As far as I understand, in this sense "copyright" refers to some "moral rights" of authors, one of the most important one of which is to choose the licence for their works (for instance by submitting them to JoPP and accepting our public domain or CC0 policy) and optionally issue the work under other licence if they want to (known as "dual licencing"). The latter can be interesting for authors if for instance they want to give a text they wrote to a collected volume or magazine that wants to publish everything under a traditional "All rights reserved" licence, but the text in question have already been published in JoPP under CC0. Hope what I try to express here is clear, I am a bit unsure, so feel free to ask. :)
cheers
Mathieu
SEE QUESTION AND POSSIBLE ANSWERS BELOW
Publisher => Self-published?
Platform, Host or Aggregator => Peter?
What digital archiving policy does the journal use? => No policy in place?
Does the journal allow software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)? => No?
Which article identifiers does the journal use? => None? DOI Handles ARK
Please indicate which formats of full text are available * PDF HTML ePUB XML Other
What is the URL for the journal's Open Access statement?
Does the journal embed or display simple machine-readable CC licensing information in its articles? Yes No
Copyright and Permissions Copyright & Licensing help
52) Does the journal allow the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions? * Yes No Other
54) Will the journal allow the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions?
-- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://relay70.metatron.ai/ In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub http://custodians.online Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don't let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the ❀❀❀❀❀ - clean the volcanoes.
HI all, particularly maxigas
On 28 Oct 2016, at 17:37, maxigas <[email protected]> wrote:
Mathieu ONeil <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> writes:
Hi all
A French colleague inquired whether JoPP was archived in any databases including the "easier to get into" Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). This seems like a pretty good fit for us. I checked it out and it does not seem too bad so I'm willing to give it a go.
https://doaj.org/application/new
However there are a few questions I'm not sure about. I've copied them all below but the most important issues IMO are PDFs and copyright.
We used to have a PDF generator for articles. This broke and was meant to be repaired...? This absence limits our ability to be picked up by search engines and archived in other databases.
@Peter (and maxigas): is there a solution in sight?
This is absolutely my sin, I signed up for testing and recommending a PDF renderer plugin for Wordpress and I never got around to put in the necessary work. I would also like JoPP to be listed in databases so I will try to do this soonish, but in order not to stress myself I would say "this year".
I've been playing around with pdf plugins when we were restoring the site and moving it to its new server. I had the intention to reinstate the pdf functionality for one of the last issues but was out of the loop regarding editorial progress. Maybe we can make an effort to, indeed, resolve the issue "this year" (some light coding required and a good way to make sure the pdf move nicely from the edit-suite to the published front end) / Peter
Hi Peter, maxigas, all OK - great. So shall I wait until the PDF generator is sorted out before registering for DOAJ? It might make more sense to do that as I am not sure how onerous it is to change one's settings with them. It might be easy, it might be hard, but given it is already a minor pain to do this, my instinct is to wait until we have that sorted. So, unless advised otherwise, that's what I will do. Re licences, CC0 sounds fine, so also provided no one objects shall we go with it? If yes, we should put it on the front page (in the hard to read area at the bottom? - not sure how to access it btw) and also in the "about" section maybe? Finally do others want to chime in re author rights? cheers Mathieu ________________________________ From: JoPP-Public <[email protected]> on behalf of Dr. Peter Troxler <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 6:53 To: Journal of Peer Production's general and public list Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] DOAJ: PDF and CC? HI all, particularly maxigas On 28 Oct 2016, at 17:37, maxigas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Mathieu ONeil <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> writes: Hi all A French colleague inquired whether JoPP was archived in any databases including the "easier to get into" Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). This seems like a pretty good fit for us. I checked it out and it does not seem too bad so I'm willing to give it a go. https://doaj.org/application/new However there are a few questions I'm not sure about. I've copied them all below but the most important issues IMO are PDFs and copyright. PDF We used to have a PDF generator for articles. This broke and was meant to be repaired...? This absence limits our ability to be picked up by search engines and archived in other databases. @Peter (and maxigas): is there a solution in sight? This is absolutely my sin, I signed up for testing and recommending a PDF renderer plugin for Wordpress and I never got around to put in the necessary work. I would also like JoPP to be listed in databases so I will try to do this soonish, but in order not to stress myself I would say "this year". I've been playing around with pdf plugins when we were restoring the site and moving it to its new server. I had the intention to reinstate the pdf functionality for one of the last issues but was out of the loop regarding editorial progress. Maybe we can make an effort to, indeed, resolve the issue "this year" (some light coding required and a good way to make sure the pdf move nicely from the edit-suite to the published front end) / Peter
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:27:31AM +0000, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Re licences, CC0 sounds fine, so also provided no one objects shall we go with it? If yes, we should put it on the front page (in the hard to read area at the bottom? - not sure how to access it btw) and also in the "about" section maybe?
For the HTML version of the articles having it in the footer, with a link to https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ , would be enough (although I agree the footer is currently *very* unreadable :-)). An additional mention in About is welcome, but not strictly needed IMO. On the other hand, we will also need to mention it explicitly in each PDF we (will) generate. -- 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 »
Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> writes:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:27:31AM +0000, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Re licences, CC0 sounds fine, so also provided no one objects shall we go with it? If yes, we should put it on the front page (in the hard to read area at the bottom? - not sure how to access it btw) and also in the "about" section maybe?
For the HTML version of the articles having it in the footer, with a link to https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ , would be enough (although I agree the footer is currently *very* unreadable :-)). An additional mention in About is welcome, but not strictly needed IMO.
On the other hand, we will also need to mention it explicitly in each PDF we (will) generate.
+1 -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://relay70.metatron.ai/ In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub http://custodians.online Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don't let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the ❀❀❀❀❀ - clean the volcanoes.
"Dr. Peter Troxler" <[email protected]> writes:
HI all, particularly maxigas
On 28 Oct 2016, at 17:37, maxigas <[email protected]> wrote:
Mathieu ONeil <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> writes:
Hi all
A French colleague inquired whether JoPP was archived in any databases including the "easier to get into" Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). This seems like a pretty good fit for us. I checked it out and it does not seem too bad so I'm willing to give it a go.
https://doaj.org/application/new
However there are a few questions I'm not sure about. I've copied them all below but the most important issues IMO are PDFs and copyright.
We used to have a PDF generator for articles. This broke and was meant to be repaired...? This absence limits our ability to be picked up by search engines and archived in other databases.
@Peter (and maxigas): is there a solution in sight?
This is absolutely my sin, I signed up for testing and recommending a PDF renderer plugin for Wordpress and I never got around to put in the necessary work. I would also like JoPP to be listed in databases so I will try to do this soonish, but in order not to stress myself I would say "this year".
I've been playing around with pdf plugins when we were restoring the site and moving it to its new server.
I had the intention to reinstate the pdf functionality for one of the last issues but was out of the loop regarding editorial progress.
Maybe we can make an effort to, indeed, resolve the issue "this year" (some light coding required and a good way to make sure the pdf move nicely from the edit-suite to the published front end)
sure, let's try to do this! -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://relay70.metatron.ai/ In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub http://custodians.online Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don't let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the ❀❀❀❀❀ - clean the volcanoes.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 05:37:23PM +0200, maxigas wrote:
See above -- I am very much against licencing content under "CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License", but I would be happy with CC0.
As observed elsewhere, we agree on this :) Also, CC0 is the closest approximation of the current "licensing" of JoPP content, that also works reasonably well world-wide (simply saying "public domain" does not).
Finally there are some questions at the end about author ownership - I assume we give all rights to authors? @Our legal experts (Angela, Steve...): any thoughts on this?
Sorry, I overlooked this in my previous answer. I'm no lawyer, but I deal with copyright licenses on a daily basis as part of my work with the Open Source Initiative. Based on that, here are my answers to the questions that Mathieu forwarded to the list:
52) Does the journal allow the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions? 54) Will the journal allow the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions?
Based on the current practices of JoPP that I've observed thus far, the answers to both of these is "yes". Copyright applies to individual copies of works. JoPP requires authors to convey to the journal articles under a specific license --- public domain up to now (even if that's not strictly speaking a license), maybe CC0 in the future --- but does not ask authors to sign any copyright transfer or equivalent agreement. Therefore authors retain the copyright on the articles, and are free to do whatever else they want with their own copies of them, including publishing them without restriction. I'm not sure we do so already, but it would be appropriate to have some due diligence on the publishing process. It would be as simple as requesting authors to explicitly agree (with a checkbox in the submission form, mail message, whatever) to release the copy of the paper they send to JoPP for final publication under CC0. Or, if they send the article in some sort of archive, to ask authors to include the CC0 dedication in there. Hope this helps, 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 »
participants (4)
-
Dr. Peter Troxler -
Mathieu ONeil -
maxigas -
Stefano Zacchiroli