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

[natacha]

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 <jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of Kat Braybrooke <kat.braybrooke at gmail.com>
> 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 <natacha at lesoiseaux.io<mailto:natacha at lesoiseaux.io>> 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
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org<mailto:JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org>
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170911/aa28a75e/attachment-0001.html>