It seems to me it would make sense for CLOCKSS to provide any deposited
CC-* articles to the public immediately, along with content no longer
available from publishers.
Arthur Smith
On 8/20/12 1:38 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:
> Possible solution?
>
> IF a funding agency were to require that any open access article processing
> fees covered by their funding require both CC-BY AND active deposit in a
> trusted digital open access archive (OpenDOAR lists thousands), this might be
> a solution to the problem that I raise below.
> OpenDOAR: http://www.opendoar.org/'
>
> The controlled LOCKSS or CLOCKSS network provides a useful model to look at,
> based on the scenario of a journal ceasing publication) - details about
> CLOCKSS can be found here:
> http://www.clockss.org/clockss/Home
>
> Comment: in my opinion, this to me is just one illustration that an open
> access future that involves both open access archives and open access
> publishing is more sustainable for scholarly communication than either
> approach alone.
>
> Original question follows.
>
> Many in the open access movement consider CC-BY to be the very embodiment of
> the spirit of the Budapest Open Access Initiative - giving away all rights to
> one's work, including commercial rights, for open access. My own take on this
> is that while CC-BY can provide a useful tool for those fully engaged in the
> open access spirit, the license is problematic for open access. This is
> important now that funding agencies in the U.K. are beginning to require
> CC-BY licenses when they fund open access article processing fees. That is to
> say, we are now looking at a situation where organizations that do not have
> any commitment to (or even liking for) open access, may be required to use
> this license.
>
> Some questions that I think should be raised at this point:
>
> The CC-BY legal code, as I read it, does not mention open access, nor is
> there any wording to suggest that the license can only be applied to works
> that are open access. Here is the URL for the legal code:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Am I missing something in the legal code, i.e. does it say somewhere
> that this license is only for open access works?
>
> 2. Is there any reason why a publisher could not use a CC-BY license on
> toll-access works? (Here I am talking about an original publisher, not a
> licensee).
>
> 3. Is there anything to stop a publisher that uses CC-BY from changing
> their license at a later point in time? (Assuming the license is the
> publisher's, not the author's).
>
> 4. Is there anything to stop a toll-access publisher from purchasing an
> open access publisher that uses CC-BY, and subsequently selling all the
> formerly open access journals under a toll-access model and dropping the open
> access versions? The license would not permit a third party to do this, but
> what I am asking about is if the original licensor sells to another publisher.
>
> To sum up, my perspective is that CC-BY, while superficially appearing to be
> the embodiment of BOAI, is actually a problematic license with significant
> loopholes and serious thought should be given to this before it is
> recommended as a standard for open access.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison, MLIS
> Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication
> http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
