I have absolutely no voice in this community was just lurking the mailing list out of curiosity, but I am astonished by this thread....

...

So, having just gone through the list archive, seems a majority wanted CC0, but could live with CC-BY-SA.

This to me is really strange, is there any reason one would not want to preserve its community and to allow its content to be appropriated indifferently by corporate media outlets, who would then be able to distort its intention ... This seems to me as a religion of open data, rather than a structured thought, to the benefit of critical thinking and alternatives. The aim of opening our sources is to facilitate transmission of ideas and content, but we absolutely want to preserve the integrity of our work and this means acknowledging the context and the reasons that contributed to the origins of the work, preserving its integrity and citing sources. There are many licenses that prevent derivatives and some that are particularly oriented towards protecting and transmitting intellectual content, I often use the free art license, that allows derivatives but with citation of sources and preservation of integrity of the content. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Free-Art-L-v1.3 The GNU project is for example quite protective of their written and creative content and recommends https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ (which is even more restrictive than free art license) that specifically states the needs for attribution and no derivatives. Clear licensing can even allow for more freedom, for example imagining an experimental future for JOPP where participation would be allowed and comments could be included in the article, even modifying the original article itself. It would then be even more important to have access to an original version of the text as submitted, and some sort of diff or historical view...

b. technically, the consequence is that the author retains ALL publishing rights -- or to be more precise, is free from any publishing restrictions -- just like all other members of the general public.

Indeed this means that Elon Musk could take part of an article (without citing its sources) transform it and sell it to wired magazine, is this really necessary? We should not confuse liberalism and free speech, I do not think we are all equal in this world and I really think we need to preserve critical publications from appropriation abuse and distortion. xxn.

On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 06:38:31AM +0000, Mathieu ONeil wrote:

It seems Natacha is in favour of Angela's position... we need to resolve this in the next few days otherwise the deadline will pass.

We had already resolved it, reaching what it seemed to be rough consensus on vetoing restrictive licenses like NC/ND. Going for a "whoever post their opinion last on this list wins" approach doesn't seem wise, especially considering the deadline. 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 »

Thank you very much for answering, Indeed as said in intro I do not consider myself having any right to a voice in this community that exists without me, I only made an intervention by sheer attachment to the JoPP. Having proposed a text for the next edition I must say the idea of it being in CC0 comes as a bad surprise, I will not refrain myself from a quick comment:

We had already resolved it, reaching what it seemed to be rough consensus on vetoing restrictive licenses like NC/ND. I have always wondered about this term "restrictive license" as there is no neutrality in our world, the issue is: to whom is it restrictive for, it seems it only restricts capitalist appropriation, as it certainly does not restrict commercial or community use, quite the contrary, it favors networks and relation between them, as those do not have any problems in citing their sources, or redistributing their work.

To me CC0 is restrictive because I am not part of this 1% and do not plan to be, ever. I have very little mean to protect myself from them, JOPP being CC0 would make one less canal of communication open for me. I would have difficulties to publish in a place where third parties could change my word without removing my name. Heart Natacha

Of course you're right here. I've used "restrictive" in the specific sense in which it used in the Free Software and Free Culture world. If you look those positions up, you'll find that no "usage" restriction on the material is actually well-defined in those contexts.

There are different views in the "free software world" and not all agree on this point.

...

I would have difficulties to publish in a place where third parties could change my word without removing my name. This is a common flaw that I see in many arguments (in fact, often the same arguments) brought against "non restrictive" (in the same sense as above) licenses. The fact that *the license* doesn't say you cannot do that, does not main it legal to do. In fact, misattributing content to someone is prone to libel and/or plagiarism risks.

For example the text presents a personal experiment (which often happens in creative research for example) and is reused and transformed without reference to the original then my intention is lost and there is no plagiarism but my name is still there. Lets take the exact example of this conversation and the way by quoting the text you select (rightly) what you want to answer and how it transforms what I originally intended to say.

Depending on the context, that might violate either the law or the ethical practices of a specific community (the scientific one in our case). So CC0 doesn't necessarily mean "free for all" as it might seem at first sight.

I never said that, I only meant that by not referencing to the original document it becomes impossible to keep the integrity of the argument.

But anyone, I'm more of a copyleft kind of person, so it really shouldn't be up to me to defend CC0 in this context :-), but yes CC-BY-SA does allow commercial use by third parties and I'm totally fine with that. I'm a scientist and as such I want the results of my work to be shared as much as possible,

Yes but I do not see why referring to original sources could prevent your work to be shared, unless the intention of the persons who shares it is to transform the content of your work, which is also possible also for scientific research.

and I'm already paid for my work,

I suppose you do not work alone and also, as we are living in a complex social system, probably some direct or indirect contributors to your work are less paid.

so I couldn't care less when: a) my work is shared, and b) others make money out of it. Getting some of those money into my pocket will not improve at all my ability to produce additional similar content in the future.

I never talked about this issue which is a completely different one, what I meant is: If my argument is transformed and reused without reference to the original, then my work could be transformed to the benefit of the economical structure that I am trying to advocate against, instead of benefiting to the networks that I want to value. I mean, new ideas and research could be appropriated by larger corporations that have way much more visibility than the more fragile critical thinking networks. Those corporations have the means to quickly adapt to new situations, they also have wider access to the media, and this allows them to transform their public image according to any new model proposed to them, reinforcing their already strong visibility. This process has largely contributed over history to reinforce the wealthiest of this world, while it also contributes to making even more invisible the alternatives and the less favored ones who historically rely on their capacity of invention to organize different models for surviving. **n.

On 09/09/2017 11:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 10:34:48PM +0200, natacha wrote:

...

I mean, new ideas and research could be appropriated by larger corporations that have way much more visibility than the more fragile critical thinking networks. Yes. And a license will not stop them to do so. They've better lawyers and deeper pockets than any of us.

This is really not a good reason for letting everything go and not position oneself in front of this reality (this is at the core of any non-violent thinking which I advocate for).

(Aside: I personally refuse to use expressions like "appropriation" for non-rival goods.)

Well this is most certainly a negation of actual context of emergence of powerstructures. All along history collective forces have been appropriated by different powers in place dismantling people's original intention, lets give the recent example of the arab spring or many others.

In the meanwhile, the license choice you're advocating for will limit other totally legitimate circulations of our research work, that I'd personally love to see happen ---

I do not advocate for the -nd licence, only mentioned the position of gnu project, on intellectual work and said it was even more restrictive than the one I referred to, but any license really is ok as long as it demands citation of previous work. n.

Now I'm really confused.

CC-BY-SA (which does require citation) is one of the options on the table here and was already so when you started this sub-thread. As it happens, is also the one I personally prefer, on the basis that it promotes the creation of additional Free Culture work. Sorry then we really agree only Mathieu O'Neill said JoPP was going to go to CC0 which triggered my reaction (as I said yesterday: "

JOPP being CC0 would make one less canal of communication open for me. " )... CC-BY-SA is indeed a lot more appropriate. Also regarding non-rivalry goods an old memory comes back to my mind: in 2004 the director of a French television canal, supported by a known publicitarian, triggered a scandal by saying "Je vends du temps de cerveau disponible à Coca-Cola" (I sell available mind space to Coca-Cola). The expression stayed... it somehow presents mind space as a rivalry good which confirms what you are saying about the non-scarcity of non-rivalry goods and re-places the issue on the social functionning itself: availability of people and energies to process and defend ideas. **n.

Hi Kat, all Thanks for your very welcome and sensible message. I was half-grasping at something along those lines so really appreciate this elegant solution to a complex discussion. I would be happy to implement it, and - for the reasons you said - hope all sides will be content. cheers Mathieu ________________________________ From: JoPP-Public <[email protected]> on behalf of Kat Braybrooke <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 0:29 To: Journal of Peer Production's general and public list Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Hello all, I'm weighing in late also, so apologies for that. I'd also like to thank folk like Mathieu for practicing such patience in aiming to respect all voices. This doesn't make for an easy or quick process -- but I too am hoping the journal can submit this in time, as being part of such an index would be a big boost for JoPP. So Mathieu, if you need any help getting it in last-minute, please let me know. My very small 2c on this debate in summary, having read through the interesting -- and I think, important -- discussion today (and also as the most heated arguments for/against different 'open' licenses, like maxigas notes, have already been argued by each of us over the years), is that the CC-BY-SA license seems to be best -- in this case. Why? My reading is that almost everyone here (and it seemed, in earlier threads on the topic) who advocated for CC-0 are also fine with CC-BY-SA. However, there remain various folk who will be offended by the potentialities of corporate/commercial use in CC-0. By choosing CC-BY-SA, the journal can stand by its original principles, align itself with other 'open' projects such as Wikipedia who have used CC-BY-SA successfully for many years, and ensure it does not alienate current/future authors who chose to submit to an 'open' journal. Again, this is just my 2c, and as a newer member of this community I am happy to go with whatever everyone else thinks is best. And again, available to help where needed to push this through in time. - Kat On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:50 AM, natacha <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Now I'm really confused.

CC-BY-SA (which does require citation) is one of the options on the table here and was already so when you started this sub-thread. As it happens, is also the one I personally prefer, on the basis that it promotes the creation of additional Free Culture work. Sorry then we really agree only Mathieu O'Neill said JoPP was going to go to CC0 which triggered my reaction (as I said yesterday: "

JOPP being CC0 would make one less canal of communication open for me. " )... CC-BY-SA is indeed a lot more appropriate. Also regarding non-rivalry goods an old memory comes back to my mind: in 2004 the director of a French television canal, supported by a known publicitarian, triggered a scandal by saying "Je vends du temps de cerveau disponible à Coca-Cola" (I sell available mind space to Coca-Cola). The expression stayed... it somehow presents mind space as a rivalry good which confirms what you are saying about the non-scarcity of non-rivalry goods and re-places the issue on the social functionning itself: availability of people and energies to process and defend ideas. **n. _______________________________________________ JoPP-Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public

Hi Mathieu, This is great news, I am grateful to have been able to share thoughts and opinions, and thank you very much to JoPP pub-list for leaving the canal open to conversations. As hard as the topic can be I feel very lucky that there are still spaces where many voices can be heard. ** n. On 09/11/2017 02:19 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote:

Hi Kat, all

Thanks for your very welcome and sensible message. I was half-grasping at something along those lines so really appreciate this elegant solution to a complex discussion.

I would be happy to implement it, and - for the reasons you said - hope all sides will be content.

cheers

Mathieu

________________________________ From: JoPP-Public <[email protected]> on behalf of Kat Braybrooke <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 0:29 To: Journal of Peer Production's general and public list Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production

Hello all,

I'm weighing in late also, so apologies for that. I'd also like to thank folk like Mathieu for practicing such patience in aiming to respect all voices. This doesn't make for an easy or quick process -- but I too am hoping the journal can submit this in time, as being part of such an index would be a big boost for JoPP. So Mathieu, if you need any help getting it in last-minute, please let me know.

My very small 2c on this debate in summary, having read through the interesting -- and I think, important -- discussion today (and also as the most heated arguments for/against different 'open' licenses, like maxigas notes, have already been argued by each of us over the years), is that the CC-BY-SA license seems to be best -- in this case.

Why? My reading is that almost everyone here (and it seemed, in earlier threads on the topic) who advocated for CC-0 are also fine with CC-BY-SA. However, there remain various folk who will be offended by the potentialities of corporate/commercial use in CC-0. By choosing CC-BY-SA, the journal can stand by its original principles, align itself with other 'open' projects such as Wikipedia who have used CC-BY-SA successfully for many years, and ensure it does not alienate current/future authors who chose to submit to an 'open' journal.

Again, this is just my 2c, and as a newer member of this community I am happy to go with whatever everyone else thinks is best. And again, available to help where needed to push this through in time.

- Kat

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:50 AM, natacha <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

...

Now I'm really confused.

CC-BY-SA (which does require citation) is one of the options on the table here and was already so when you started this sub-thread. As it happens, is also the one I personally prefer, on the basis that it promotes the creation of additional Free Culture work. Sorry then we really agree only Mathieu O'Neill said JoPP was going to go to CC0 which triggered my reaction (as I said yesterday: "

JOPP being CC0 would make one less canal of communication open for me.

" )...

CC-BY-SA is indeed a lot more appropriate.

Also regarding non-rivalry goods an old memory comes back to my mind: in 2004 the director of a French television canal, supported by a known publicitarian, triggered a scandal by saying "Je vends du temps de cerveau disponible à Coca-Cola" (I sell available mind space to Coca-Cola). The expression stayed... it somehow presents mind space as a rivalry good which confirms what you are saying about the non-scarcity of non-rivalry goods and re-places the issue on the social functionning itself: availability of people and energies to process and defend ideas.

**n.

_______________________________________________ JoPP-Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[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