Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Thanks, Charles. A lot of scholarship is still available only through subscription or per-article toll access. I recall considerable discussion a few years ago (in a prior position focused on licensing electronic resources for many libraries) about publishers refusing to allow massive

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Heather wrote : "An author wishing to pre-authorize translations but only under particular conditions [...] should [...] grant additional permissions [...] with a CC+ license." First, note that CC+ it's not a CC license, but a CC protocol (or tool). The distinction is important because what's

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

The statement: "Copyright is only invoked if you want to actually copy an original table for inclusion in a publication" is completely wrong. The question of whether it is legal to point to another work depends on the jurisdiction. It is Ancillary Copyright see

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

hi Peter, On 2017-01-24, at 10:10 AM, Peter Murray-Rust > wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Heather Morrison > wrote: Another critique that may be more relevant to this argument: I

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Another critique that may be more relevant to this argument: I challenge > PMR's contention that it is necessary to limit this kind of research to > works that are licensed CC-BY. If you gather data from a

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Another critique that may be more relevant to this argument: I challenge PMR's contention that it is necessary to limit this kind of research to works that are licensed CC-BY. If you gather data from a great many different tables and analyze it, what you will be publishing is your own work.

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

hi Fiona, It seems we have been thinking along the same lines - I have a similar proposal that tries to address the same issue. An author wishing to pre-authorize translations but only under particular conditions, e.g. that the translation is done by an appropriately qualified translator and

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Hi Heather, I think there’s too much variation in copyright arrangements and agreements for me to comment on that but indeed should authors prefer and there’s no other arrangements in place stating otherwise you could put authors in place of institution/publisher in my comment. I think

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > hi Peter, > > If many knowledge projects are advancing our knowledge through the means > that you have described, surely there are others than the one you started > yesterday? Can you provide a list or

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

hi Peter, If many knowledge projects are advancing our knowledge through the means that you have described, surely there are others than the one you started yesterday? Can you provide a list or literature review of such studies? My OA APC study uses data from different sources that do not have

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

There are many activities where CC BY or a more liberal licence (CC 0) is the only way that modern science can be done. Many knowledge-based projects in science , technology, medicine, use thousands of documents a day to extract and publish science. (We started one yesterday at

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

With all due respect to the people who created and shared the "how open is it" spectrum tool, I find some of the underlying assumptions to be problematic. For example the extreme of closed access assumes that having to pay subscriptions, membership, pay per view etc. is the far end of closed.

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

I rather like the ‘How open is it?’ tool that approaches this as a spectrum: http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/ I may be quite ‘hard line’, but I acknowledge that by moving along the spectrum a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open - and more open is better

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Thanks Marc this is helpful info although these links do not work. > > An important related issue is a tendency towards copyright expansion in > the form of seeking to define linking under copyright. One

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Hi Marc, You say: "I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such: I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means." I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps not you, but OA

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Thanks Marc this is helpful info although these links do not work. An important related issue is a tendency towards copyright expansion in the form of seeking to define linking under copyright. One manifestation of this was the EU proposal of a "link tax", as covered by Open Media here:

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Hi all, Éric wonders if Google infringes copyright (or violates the licence) when displaying CC BY-NC papers in its search results pages. As these pages only contain basic bibliographical data, very short excerpts and hyperlinks, I would think that this "use" falls either outside of copyright

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Thank you for raising the question of educational use, Marc. One reason authors and funders may prefer licenses with non-commercial terms is specifically to avoid giving rights to for-profit firms in the educational sector, such as for-profit colleges, universities, and vendors of for-profit

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

To state the obvious: Google searches are not limited to Creative Commons licensed works. If people could prevent search engines from searching things simply by not applying a CC license allowing for commercial terms, that would create a new set of problems that could not be solved by people

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Hi all, Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here. I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such : - I don't equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I'm a little bit tired of discussions about what "being OA" means. - I work to help increase the proportion of

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Marc has a good point on the NC character. Does intermediation counts? For example, Google presents millions of papers on its search results pages and these papers contribute as fodder to Google's $2.18 million net after taxes profit per hour (the vast majority of these profits are from

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Stephen Downes wrote : "From the perspective of a person wishing to access content, a work that is CC-by, but which requires payment to access, is not free at all" I find this interpretation a bit extreme, considering that: - The CC BY work for which payment is required must be attributed, and

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

> Some open access advocates do equate OA with the CC-BY license, but not all > of us. My perspective is that pushing for ubiquitous CC-BY is a major > strategic error for the OA movement. I also have been arguing that CC-by-NC ought to be considered equally acceptable. Open access licenses

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Personally, yes I do Paul. Indeed, I also agree with Heather Morrison that insisting on the use of CC BY is a strategic error on the part of the OA movement, and I hope to publish a somewhat longer piece arguing as much in the near future. Richard Poynder On 23 Jan 2017 12:21, "Paul THIRION"

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Richard Poynder wrote: > OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed > at the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that > only papers with a CC BY licence attached can be

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Some open access advocates do equate OA with the CC-BY license, but not all of us. My perspective is that pushing for ubiquitous CC-BY is a major strategic error for the OA movement. Key arguments: Granting blanket downstream commercial re-use rights allows for downstream toll access whether

[GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed at the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that only papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access. And yet millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC