<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p>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)</p>
<p><a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" class="OWAAutoLink" id="LPlnk443575" previewremoved="true">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</a><br>
<br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces@lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:56<br>
<b>To:</b> jopp-public@lists.ourproject.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p>Hi Zack, all</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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...?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>cheers</p>
<p>Mathieu</p>
<br>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces@lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:13<br>
<b>To:</b> jopp-public@lists.ourproject.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt">
<div class="PlainText">On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:12:15AM +0000, Angela Daly wrote:<br>
> I would advocate a CC-BY-NC-ND licence for the following reasons:<br>
<br>
Sorry, but I object. A journal like JoPP can't have anything short of a<br>
license that qualifies as Free Culture:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_Free_Cultural_Works#.22Free_cultural_works.22_approved_licenses" id="LPlnk600522" previewremoved="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_Free_Cultural_Works#.22Free_cultural_works.22_approved_licenses</a><br>
<br>
Anything more restrictive than that would fall short of the ethos of the<br>
journal (peer production!), in my humble opinion.<br>
<br>
(Also, we already had this discussion, if memory serves.)<br>
<br>
If we want to stay as liberal as possible, the best implementation of<br>
what is called public domain in some countries around the world is the<br>
CC0 license, already mentioned in this thread. If we want to encourage<br>
the further sharing of scientific works that might reuse papers<br>
published on JoPP, than CC-BY-SA 4.0 is the obvious choice.<br>
<br>
Regarding the risk of potential misrepresentation of thought works,<br>
CC-BY-SA already offers ample protections.<br>
<br>
No matter what the decision will be, a note of warning: you cannot<br>
*retroactively* stick a license on papers published on JoPP without<br>
consent by the individual authors. And for what is worth, personally, I<br>
would object to articles that have my name on it to be on JoPP with a<br>
NC/ND license (which is not a big deal, only a single article up to<br>
now). I already have enough articles published by "ordinary" publishing<br>
houses under very restrictive licenses, paywalls and what not. For my<br>
contributions to JoPP, I really want them to be free as in Free Culture.<br>
<br>
I'm sorry if I come out as party pooper here, but I really care about<br>
licensing choices.<br>
<br>
Cheers.<br>
-- <br>
Stefano Zacchiroli . zack@upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o<br>
Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o<br>
Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o .<br>
� the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club �<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
JoPP-Public mailing list<br>
JoPP-Public@lists.ourproject.org<br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public" id="LPlnk87530" previewremoved="true">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>