Pippa / Dan, Section 4.2 of the policy states that "the journal must allow deposit of Accepted Manuscripts that include all changes resulting from peer review (but not necessarily incorporating the publisher's formatting) in other repositories, without restrictions on non-commercial re-use and within a defined period" (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to_Research_Outputs.pdf).
The policy does not define a specific licence for green deposit, provided non-commercial re-use such as text and data mining is supported. In presentations I say that this 'equates to CC-BY-NC', however, we do not specifically require CC-BY-NC. This is because some publishers, such as Nature (http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/license.html), offer specific deposit licences which meet the requirements of the policy. However, as Ross notes, this is the minimum requirement. So if authors are able and willing to use more open licences, such as CC-BY, we would encourage this. The more open the licence, the less ambiguities and barriers there are to re-use of repository content. Mark. Mark Thorley NERC, Head of Science Information NERC, Data Management Coordinator Chair RCUK Research Outputs Network Member CODATA Executive Committee Natural Environment Research Council Swindon SN2 1EU Email: [email protected] twitter: @MarkRThorley skype: MarkRThorley -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pippa Smart Sent: 31 January 2013 14:51 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: RCUK policy: relationship between green and CC-BY-NC To me the policy doesn't contradict itself: it says: Gold OA must allow commercial reuse but Green OA can be restricted to non-commercial reuse only ("without restrictions on non-commercial re-use" - i.e. without restrictions, so long as the reuse is non-commercial) and - so far as I am aware - this is fairly common in other mandates - i.e. "if we pay publishers for gold OA, then we want it fully accessible (for commercial and other re-use), but if we don't pay them, then we will allow them to make commercial use, but insist that others may be able to make non-commercial reuse without restriction" Pippa ***** Pippa Smart Research Communication and Publishing Consultant PSP Consulting 3 Park Lane, Appleton, Oxon OX13 5JT, UK Tel: +44 7775 627688 or +44 1865 864255 email: [email protected] Web: www.pspconsulting.org **** Editor of the ALPSP-Alert, Reviews editor of Learned Publishing **** On 30 January 2013 15:05, Dan Stowell <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > We're having some discussion in our research group here about the RCUK > policy, and there's a point of interpretation, which I wonder if > you've resolved yourselves. > > The question is whether RCUK policy on green OA implies a specific > licence, and in particular whether it implies CC-BY-NC. I don't really > want to discuss what the policy *should* be, if you don't mind - just > trying to understand what the policy *is*. > > Linked from the RCUK's main outputs page > <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx> > are two documents. One is the main policy document > <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to > _Research_Outputs.pdf> > - it clearly says (sec 4.1) that gold must be CC-BY, while for green > (sec 4.2) it says "the journal must allow deposit [...] in other > repositories, without restrictions on non-commercial re-use and within > a defined period." So it seems clear to me that that is not a positive > requirement for a specific licence, but a negative requirement that we > cannot do green OA that bans commercial use. The guidance document > linked just below it does not narrow down green any further. > > However, linked from *the same page* is a presentation > <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/Thorley_RCUK_November2012.p > df) which very clearly (slide 10) says "Green (at least post print) > with a maximum embargo period of 6(12) months, and CC-BY-NC". > > Both of these cannot be true, or else I'm misinterpreting something. > Does the Thorley presentation contain a mistaken assertion, or a > missing context? > > Thanks > Dan > > > -- > Dan Stowell > Postdoctoral Research Assistant > Centre for Digital Music > Queen Mary, University of London > Mile End Road, London E1 4NS > http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/digitalmusic/people/dans.htm > http://www.mcld.co.uk/ > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
