[JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production

[Mathieu ONeil]

PS. To clarify the below was in reaction to the words on this page which say on one hand users can freely remix and modify (but then says also credit must be given and changes indicated so maybe all is well)

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/



________________________________
From: JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:56
To: jopp-public at lists.ourproject.org
Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production


Hi Zack, all


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? Is there more emotional attachment to words than code, so that while its OK to reuse and remix code without attribution to build something more efficient and elegant, this applies less to words? On one hand "detournement" (Debord) rejects all IP and all conception of authorship; on the other we are dealing with scientific / academic authors...?


cheers

Mathieu

________________________________
From: JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of Stefano Zacchiroli <zack at pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:13
To: jopp-public at lists.ourproject.org
Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production

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_cultural_works.22_approved_licenses

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 . zack at 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 at 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/20170819/70228831/attachment-0001.html>