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

Thu Sep 7 11:55:49 CEST 2017

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.