Stevan Harnad wrote:
The scholarly author wants only to PUBLISH them, that is, to reach
the eyes and minds of peers, fellow esoteric scientists and scholars
the world over, so that they can build on one another's
contributions in that cumulative, collaborative enterprise called
The difference for public domain in terms of flexible access to the
scientific literature, is only that the original expression of the
document, of substantive portions which exhibit originality, is no
longer covered by copyright.
Other options provide this level of access by means of
/open split.
Try to shake hands based on a discussion of principle and strategy,
which might include granting that some may feel it more advisable to
pursue different approaches.
The free/open split, at least as I see it by reading your words
alone so far, is off the mark on both sides.
Seth
important: attesting to original
textuality.
Seth Johnson
--
[CC] Counter-copyright:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication.
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably
be stressed that in the area of
copyright, it fails to emphasize that we are speaking of an
artificial grant of exclusive rights to expression per se,
as opposed to any creation of a property right to
information.
Seth Johnson
Stevan Harnad wrote:
theft of text
owning [. . .] one's text's
Stevan Harnad wrote:
[. . .] Apart from wanting to be
properly credited for its authorship (i.e., protected from plagiarism)
and to be ensured that the text is not altered or corrupted in any way,
I have to confess that I have no real idea what this latter
condition really means.
