I would definitely support this.
Laurent
Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan
Harnad, that the author was the one who
Hi all,
Some points re this discussion:
Helen wrote:
1.CC-BY is not necessary for data and text-mining. Internet search
engines such as google and social media companies do extensive data and text
mining, and they do not limit themselves to CC-BY material. This is true even
in the EU,
Great points Dan, thank you
* some sort of licensing IS generally necessary for data and
text mining.
* The Open Database Licence also appears to assert that digital material
must be made available in a readily machine-interpretable form
Perhaps academic works and the Open Access movement might
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Dan Stowell dan.stow...@eecs.qmul.ac.ukwrote:
Hi all,
Some points re this discussion:
Helen wrote:
Heather??
1.CC-BY is not necessary for data and text-mining. Internet search
engines such as google and social media companies do extensive data and
Me to - this is the fundamental blocker when we try to explore full text
content exchange between repositories.
Jo
On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Laurent Romary laurent.rom...@inria.fr wrote:
I would definitely support this.
Laurent
Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
Peter,
It would simplify things a lot.
So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final
manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence,
in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication.
This has many similarities
Maybe some publication repositories who would be ready to play the game, at
institutional, national or thematic level, backed up by eminent and open (!)
champions of the cause.
Laurent
Le 10 oct. 2012 à 13:15, Jan Velterop a écrit :
The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are
Hopefully germane to this (developing) position, I've pushed for a CC-BY
use licence on all content exposed through the soon to be launched Research
Portal/IR at QUB. The leverage provided by RCUK's strong position on this
is at least one positive during what has been a difficult summer for policy
This brings to mind the idea of the data paper, described here
http://www.pensoft.net/J_FILES/Pensoft_Data_Publishing_Policies_and_Guidelines.pdf
This seems to have been pioneered by this publisher. There is also a data paper
journal in archaeology, JOAD
Jan, What similarities with arXiv are you referring to? Arxiv allows an author
to attach specific CC licences (two are allowable); EPrints presents the author
with this option at deposit. But it is not mandated, and how commonly is this
option taken by authors, in arXiv or any other
I have no problem with this model, assuming that there is no compulsion from
the RCs to move to the second stage of publishing in a journal. However, if
there is a possibility that many articles will only go to stage 1 and are
deposited in a repository without going on to be published in a
** Cross-Posted **
This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher
community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA
mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online
access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights):
Steve,
I wasn't clear. The 'similarity' refers to the idea of a repository for
depositing preprints, as opposed to the published version of record. That's
all. Don't read too much in the example. ArXiv allows CC-BY-NC-SA, which I
don't advocate. But arXiv is just an example I had in mind. If
Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the
definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on
the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean
— for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition
According to Mark Kleinman, the private equity owners of Springer (EQT, a
private investment company in Sweden and the Government Investment Corporation
of Singapore) are making moves to solicit offers to purchase Springer. Details:
Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run
scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see any
implications. I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is not
profitable enough, in which case they will either a) put prices up and
I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me
that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, if
I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in my own
opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because
Universities could form a consortium, pool whatever they spend on Springer,
do a leveraged buyout of the company, and run it as a nonprofit... (I am
NOT saying it is a good idea.)
--Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
Telephone: (626) 376-5415
Skype:
On 2012-10-10, at 10:05 AM, David Prosser wrote:
Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run
scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see any
implications. I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is not
profitable enough, in
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the
definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends
on the day you
Jean-Claude,
Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis
Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal
goal? If so, on what basis?
Best,
Jan
On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote:
I have been observing this
Jan,
Please read again what I wrote. I repeat:
The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether
the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case,
I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the
goal of
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Heather Morrison hgmor...@sfu.ca wrote:
On 2012-10-10, at 10:05 AM, David Prosser wrote:
Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run
scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see
any implications. I guess
Jean-Claude,
I get that. But I have a question that I don't think has been answered yet.
I'll phrase the question differently: Do you think that going for libre
wherever we can, impedes the chances of achieving gratis where libre is not
currently realistically possible?
Best,
Jan
On 10 Oct
Hello,
As far as I understand english, it seems that
Jean-Claude says exactly the contrary :
Having gratis access is a first goal that
doesn't impede having free (re-utilisable)
acces after.
For one time Jean-Claude strategically agree
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude
jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:
Jan,
Please read again what I wrote. I repeat:
The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is
whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this
particular
Jan,
I do not think it does, provided that the *wherever* quest for libre
that you suggest does not get confused with the *absolute need* to get
libre and nothing else. What I think concerns Stevan is that some people
get so hung up on libre as a result of the systematic nature of the
*wherever*
27 matches
Mail list logo
