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