[JoPP-Public] License Issues

Tue Aug 22 10:11:05 CEST 2017

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 --------- christian at siefkes.net ---------
| 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/attachments/20170822/b27f0e81/attachment.sig>