Hi All, I am giving my quick comments/suggestions on the subject... shall we ask the author to choose his own terms of license as per his/her institution requirement?
I am sorry I have not gone thru the discussion... I shall be doing the same now.. as the author addendum is only a format... while educating the authors about various licenses, if the format allows the author to choose the best license, it would be better... what others may say? Thanks & Regards Sridhar _________________________________________________________________________ Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, PG Dip Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP & Biotechnology (WIPO) Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) & Joint Secretary, ARSSF Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture (CISH) Rehmankhera, P.O.Kakori, Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India Fax: +91-522-2841025, Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Mobile:+91-9005760036 CISH http://www.cishlko.org ARSSF http://www.arssf.co.nr My site http://www.gutam.co.nr My Publications http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/ My Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/gutam2000 My Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gutamsridhar My LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/sridhargutam On 12 December 2011 09:54, Heather Morrison <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11-Dec-11, at 3:07 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > > On 11 December 2011 22:14, Heather Morrison <[email protected]> wrote: > CC, NC, and scholarly blogs - an emerging format that we need to think > about, and would be impacted if CC were to drop NC. Someone please correct > me if I am wrong: I assume that if my blog license were changed to CC-BY, > then someone else could set up a mirror site, turn on Adsense, and keep the > revenue for themselves. To me, this would be offensive, take away a source > of potential revenue I might actually need someday, and quite possibly > decrease my own blog stats - a measure that some of us might wish to use to > show the value of this more open approach. For all these reasons, if CC-NC > disappears, then CC will disappear from my blog, and I will happily go back > to automatic copyright or a more restrictive license, as these would be my > best options. > > But: > * These hypothetical stealing bloggers still need to say where it's come > from, and if you do a decent job at promoting your own site, it should get > most of the visitors, appear higher in search rankings, and so on. There > are sites out there that just mirror Wikipedia for profit, but none of them > have made much of an impact, as far as I know. > > Comment: why would I want to put myself in a position where I might have > to compete with someone copying my blog? Much easier to license NC - or all > rights restricted, if CC takes this option away from me. This won't > necessarily stop people, but at least it tells anyone who pays attention > that this is not okay. > > > * No other blogger can repost any copyrightable part of your work (like a > diagram you've drawn) if their blog is also ad supported. To my mind, this > sort of reuse is a key part of what open access aims to allow. > > Comment: if I have licensed my work as CC-BY, then re-use is allowed, and > for commercial purposes. Does this not mean that others can take my work > and create derivates, such as an ad-filled copy? How so? > > > * Tools such as RSS aggregators or Readability will already deprive you of > ad revenue, however you license your content. It's impossible to force > people to read things on your site, with your ads beside them. > > Comment: this is an interesting point. At any rate, my reasons for > preferring NC are not restricted to web ads. For example, I might want to > create and sell a book. > > > best, > > Heather Morrison > > > ______________________________**_________________ > open-science mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**listinfo/open-science<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science> >
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
