SV: License for scholarly or scientific papers
Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe
Hugo.Alroe at agrsci.dk
Mon Sep 15 06:54:43 EDT 2003
Thank you for your detailed answer, which points out different licences used in scholarly open access initiatives. The examples are very relevant, since I am looking for a licence to use for e.g. preprints in our open access archive, Organic Eprints <http://orgprints.org/>.
But I am still not quite sure what licence to pick and if any of them is exactly right, because the examples you refer to use three different licences (by, by-sa and by-nd). In particular, one use the no-derivatives condition, whereas the others don't. And this was the point I was most unsure about.
The way things usually are in the academic world, you are allowed to use verbatim quotes of other works (some copyrights restrict the length of quotes, I think). And you are allowed (required) to refer to others and cite them as supporters of certain ideas or theories. These instances seems to be covered simply by the attribution condition. The no-derivatives condition then would concern things like translations, modifications of graphics, etc. And if one allows for derivatives, it is probably best to use the share-alike condition, because otherwise the translator could make a different licence on his or her translation.
My conclusion for now would be that the by-sa is the best licence to use for scholarly work - unless one wishes to avoid (e.g.) unsolicited translations, in which case the by-nd would be appropriate. There would be some sense in choosing by-nd, since one would not have any tool to make quality control of (e.g.) translations without the no-derivatives condition - and translations of an academic text can be a delicate business.
Have I missed anything?
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Wouter Vanden Hove [mailto:wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be]
> Sendt: 12. september 2003 20:55
> Til: cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> Emne: Re: License for scholarly or scientific papers
> vr 12-09-2003, om 14:23 Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe wrote:
> > I am new to list list, so I will first just brifly explore whether
> > my issue has already been treated.
> > We are in need of a licence suitable for researchers.
> > Searching through the archives, I find no mention of a licence
> > for scholarly or scientific papers.
> Right. A few months ago, I wanted to propose such an "academic"
> option, but I changed my mind about that.
> > These are special by being
> > intended for usage but not modification.
> All text is intends for "usage" (to be read), but what about
> translation, or repurposing to another broader audience? Or re-using
> graphics? For popularizing science modfication is a great benefit.
> > The present licences do not seem to fit this purpose,
> > because the authors would love derivative works
> > in the sense of works building on the ideas by way of
> reffering to them,
> > but not modifications of their work like the resampling of
> a piece of music.
> Referring to or citing a work does not constitute a derivative.
> Just like the free software movement, there is a movement of
> and academics that want free access to the scientific literature.
> The recent Bethesda Definition of "Open Access" is as follows:
> An Open Access Publication is one that meets the following two
> 1. The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a
> free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of
> access to, and
> a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the
> work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in
> any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to
> proper attribution of authorship, as well as the right to
> make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.
> 2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,
> including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a
> suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately
> upon initial publication in at least one online
> repository that
> is supported by an academic institution, scholarly society,
> government agency, or other well-established organization that
> seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution,
> interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical
> sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository).
> See http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition
> The Public Library of Science has chosen the CC-Attribution
> license for
> the publications in their open access journals.
> The Directory of Open Access Journals at www.doaj.org
> opted for a CC-share-alike license for their database.
> The white papers of BOAJ are licensed CC-BY-ND
> So I think a special academic option is not necessary anymore.
> Open Access should standardize on a default license:CC-ATT is perfect
> for that. Special options rapidly make things more complex.
> Even more, Martin Sabo proposed the Public Access to Science Act:
> "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work
> produced pursuant to scientific research substantially funded by the
> Federal Government to the extent provided in the funding agreement
> I would like to suggest The public Library of Science as featured
> commoner when their first journal comes out, planned for october 2003.
> Wouter Vanden Hove
> www.opencursus.be (Flemish open course portal)
> www.open-education.org (open content in education advocacy site)
More information about the cc-licenses