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

Sat Sep 9 22:34:48 CEST 2017

> 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.