I agree with the consensus. I would add that the use of "Creative Commons"
by itself (e.g. "this is published under a Creative Commons licence" ) is
frequent and can be seriously misleading. Licensors should always state the
exact variant of the licence.
I'd also suggest we point out that CC-* is
Jeffrey Beall wrote:
>
> The two biggest problems I see are 1).
> Contradictory licensing statements, such as the one shown below
>
I agree with the previous replies that there's no contradiction in the text
displayed in the image provided.
But I went to the journal's website (http://www.ijsat.
In what way is it contradictory for a publisher to claim copyright (if it has
been transferred to the publishers) and then license it under a CC-BY licence?
Any legitimate copyright holder, be it the author or the publisher, can surely
license under whatever licence they choose?
Jan Velterop
O
During the review procedure for publishers applying to join OASPA, one of the
key requirements is appropriate licensing of published material. This area can
often be the source of the most confusion, particularly for smaller
organisations. With this in mind, OASPA has posted this set of licens
