Jan,
It is really good to hear that we agree that authors should deposit their
articles even when publishing in an open access journal.
There are a variety of reasons why publishers might change their practices over
time. As you may be aware, there are instances where open access journals have
Heather,
What possible motive could a publisher have to act according to the scenario
you sketch? Spite? Some wicked pleasure in frustrating the hell out of his
authors? They could go out of business, that's true. Oh, and repositories could
be discontinued and closed, too, of course. How is thi
lf Of
Heather Morrison
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:28 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: CC-BY and - or versus - open access
Thanks, Marc and Jan.
I'd like to repeat this for emphasis, from the CC-BY legal code thanks to Marc:
"Licensor reserv
Thanks, Marc and Jan.
I'd like to repeat this for emphasis, from the CC-BY legal code thanks to Marc:
"Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms
or to stop distributing the Work at any time".
Comment: a publisher can publish a work as CC-BY (which does not re
Jan Velterop wrote:
>
> a (c) licence can only ever be changed from less open/less liberal to
> more open/more liberal; otherwise the user/reader can always claim to
> have read/used/distributed under the previous licence or not being
> aware of the new licence.
>
I completely agree. And the u
When I worked for a development publisher we used a version of the CC
licence for both our online and printed and CD books. Online was
available for free. Printed and CD books were sold - but the purchaser
could then reuse the content as they wished. So, yes, it is entirely
possible to put a CC-BY
It seems to me it would make sense for CLOCKSS to provide any deposited
CC-* articles to the public immediately, along with content no longer
available from publishers.
Arthur Smith
On 8/20/12 1:38 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:
> Possible solution?
>
> IF a funding agency were to require that
Heather,
Ever heard of FUD? This is it.
Jan Velterop
Sent from my iPad
On 17 Aug 2012, at 18:54, Heather Morrison wrote:
> Many in the open access movement consider CC-BY to be the very embodiment of
> the spirit of the Budapest Open Access Initiative - giving away all rights to
> one's wo
And off we go, yet again, Rights Rapture Redux:
*Overselling the Importance and Urgency of CC-BY/CC-BY-NC *
*for Peer-Reviewed Scholarly and Scientific Research*
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/909-.html
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:
> On 2012-08-17,
On 2012-08-17, at 11:03 AM, Arthur Smith wrote:
> There is nothing preventing somebody from charging for a work provided
> through a CC-BY or other CC license; however, the first person to
> purchase such content then has the right (from the CC license) to
> redistribute it freely, so in practi
Heather Morrison asks four questions about the CC-BY license
>
> 1. Am I missing something in the legal code, i.e. does it say somewhere
that this
> license is only for open access works?
>
No, but it makes any work to which it is attached de facto OA.
>
> 2. Is there any reason why a
There is nothing preventing somebody from charging for a work provided
through a CC-BY or other CC license; however, the first person to
purchase such content then has the right (from the CC license) to
redistribute it freely, so in practice if any publisher tried to charge
it would be self-def
12 matches
Mail list logo
