[Commons-research] Commons-research Digest, Vol 2, Issue 14

Tyng-Ruey Chuang trc at iis.sinica.edu.tw
Tue Mar 25 20:47:59 EDT 2008


Right, Prodromos. You are saying it is irrelevant for the public licenses that are used,
while I want to say is that it is relevant whether to make it publicly available or not.
I was too quick in reading your post. It was late, and I was tired. :-)

best,
Tyng-Ruey


Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:
> Giorgo, we should be thanking you for all the effort you are putting 
> into this :)
>  
> I am fine with your suggestion. Let's get this CfP out at last!
>  
> Only, after reading Tyng-Ruey's post I think we should clarify what we 
> mean by opt-out:
> (a) not to use the CC BY licence as you suggest and/or
> (b) not to make some material (e.g. slides) available at all
>  
> Btw, I don't disagree with you Tyng-Ruey :) I am saying exactly the same 
> thing: either you publish on the site (that's what I meant by making 
> publicly available) and bear the risk of infringement irrespective of 
> the licensing scheme or you don't publish at all.
>  
> Thanks again!
> pRo
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Giorgos Cheliotis <mailto:giorgos at smu.edu.sg>
>     *To:* commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>     <mailto:commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org>
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:37 PM
>     *Subject:* RE: [Commons-research] Commons-research Digest, Vol 2,
>     Issue 14
> 
>     Prodrome thanks for the long post
>      
>     My apologies for having increased the traffic to the list
>     significantly lately, I'm trying to bring everything together for
>     the call to finally come out.
>      
>     I'm sorry if the term "partisan" may sound inappropriate to some,
>     though I do feel that it is fitting: CC BY is the most liberal of
>     all CC licenses and promoting this license in particular, as opposed
>     to having options, is signifying a particular stance that is
>     ideologically motivated. I may agree with most of the ideology
>     behind it, but that is another matter.
>      
>     Prodromos is right to state that for presentation in places which
>     publish book proceedings you often need to assign the rights to the
>     conference. But we are not an IEEE conference on X or similar, we do
>     not publish book proceedings, and this is a workshop which we are
>     doing for the first time and which aims at the presentation of work
>     in progress. Such workshops do not have any policies of that manner
>     that I am aware of, so let's please not add more restrictions and
>     layers upon layers of policies in the name of "freedom" (the CFP is
>     getting longer and longer by the way :). Such workshops sometimes
>     ask that the authors allow them to publish submissions online,
>     without any general and public assignment of rights besides the
>     right to publish the proceedings in a specific manner.
>      
>     So this is what I meant by opt-out: authors can opt out of the CC-BY
>     license by explicitly requesting for this (maybe no one will), but
>     cannot opt out from what is stated in the CFP i.e. that they grant
>     the organizers the right to publish the proceedings in an open
>     format online.
>      
>     I think this should be clear enough. If I'm mistaken please do
>     correct me. It's 1:30AM local time after all and I make
>     mistakes :) Every objection so far on this list has helped me and
>     the rest of the team come up with a better plan.
>      
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of
>     Prodromos Tsiavos
>     *Sent:* Wed 3/26/2008 12:51 AM
>     *To:* commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>     *Subject:* Re: [Commons-research] Commons-research Digest, Vol 2,
>     Issue 14
> 
>     Apologies for the long post :)
>      
>     I appreciate that the quality of the submitted papers rather than
>     the licensing issue is the key issue in relation to the workshop. I
>     also appreciate the ideological neutrality of Giorgos' point
>     suggesting a compromise solution, i.e. having CCBY as the default
>     with an opt-out option, and I would not mind sticking to such a
>     solution.
>      
>     However, I am slightly annoyed that an open licensing policy is
>     coined as "partisan". The standard policy and norm in most
>     scientific or academic conferences is to assign (not even license!!)
>     the rights to the conference so that publication is
>     possible. So, were we a "non-partisan" research group, we would ask
>     all participants to assign or exclusively license all their rights
>     to the iSummit. Then we could license the content under whichever
>     licence we would deem as appropriate...So much for not being partisan...
>      
>     The argument regarding presentations making use of non-cleared
>     content is actually irrelevant to the kind of licensing regime you
>     are going to choose once (a) you decide to make the content of the
>     presentation public and (b) provided you do not wish to stay in the
>     gray zone of "I infringe copyright but who's going to find out":
>     - if it falls under fair use, it does not matter which licence you
>     are going to use for the dissemination of the presentation
>     - if it does not fall under fair use or exceptions, then you are
>     infringing copyright, again, irrespectively of the licensing scheme
>     you are going to use.
>      
>     I have written pro-FLOSS/CC papers and still had to assign
>     copyrights to the publishing house. The quality of the journal/
>     conference rather than the licensing scheme played the key role in
>     my decision to publish. In the same way that closed licensing
>     arrangements do not affect those that wish to publish, open
>     licensing arrangements should not play a role either. If we frame
>     the discussion otherwise we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
>      
>     Having said all that, I would still support Giorgos' point and
>     suggest a CC_BY policy with an opt-out option only to check the kind
>     of licensing arrangements we are going to end up with.
>      
>     Which brings me to a very practical point: what exactly should the
>     opt-out option be?
>      
>     I mean, practically we will need at least a licence to publish the
>     material on the iSummit site and also a licence to publish the
>     material on any other medium. Effectively, the opt-out option would
>     mean:
>     (a) not to publish the material at all (which I would assume is
>     something we don't want) or
>     (b) to license the material to iSummit/ iCommons (which could  then
>     license the material under which licensing scheme? CC_BY perhaps? :)).
>      
>     Any suggestions?
>      
>     best,
>     pRo
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
> 
>         ----- Original Message -----
>         *From:* Giorgos Cheliotis <mailto:giorgos at smu.edu.sg>
>         *To:* commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>         <mailto:commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org>
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2008 4:45 PM
>         *Subject:* RE: [Commons-research] Commons-research Digest, Vol
>         2, Issue 14
> 
>         Good points indeed, maybe it is not much to ask for after all...
>         but I think it is clear from the responses thus far that we are
>         arguing for forcing a CC-BY on everyone who wants to have the
>         privilege of presenting at the isummit, implying that such
>         people MUST be friends of free culture, thus
>         automatically excluding people who are not from presenting at
>         the workshop. There goes my wish for a neutral point of view.
>          
>         Let's now think about someone who is not a friend of CC or is
>         just not a friend of CC-BY (let's not forget that only a small
>         fraction of CC-licensed items are licensed under this license,
>         so it is actually not really popular). That person will most
>         likely be put off by the restriction that he/she has to use
>         CC-BY. What if for example the paper is about how CC BY sucks
>         and one should not use it? And, in any case, why should we
>         attempt to force this person to use CC BY? The whole spirit of
>         CC, as I understand it, is to provide options and educate people
>         on copyright issues, not to force a particular stance on
>         licensing. Now, icommons as an organization may have specific
>         policies in place which are designed for icommons and the
>         community. I respect that. The workshop however, is not purely
>         for internal consumption and we really want to reach out to
>         everyone who may disagree with what icommons stands for but can
>         express this disagreement in a serious and well-founded manner.
>          
>         So, in conclusion, I propose that for this too we use an opt-out
>         approach as some of you have suggested (or hinted at). I believe
>         it should be spelled out explicitly in the CFP: It is  CC-BY
>         with an opt-out option, and it is easy to opt-out if one
>         desires. This way we can make "free" the default, but not
>         prejudice anyone who may not be ready to be as "free" as others,
>         for practical reasons as Tyng-Ruey mentioned, or for ideological
>         reasons. (As a side-thought, it may be that a "partisan research
>         workshop" is not an entirely bad idea, but I'd rather stick with
>         a non-partisan one that tries to maintain a neutral point of view.)
>          
>         I hope the above is acceptable as a compromise and is not seen
>         as a huge deviation from the main policy of the summit, as it
>         only differs in the inclusion of an opt-out option. By the way,
>         I use CC-BY for my presentations :) and I will often argue about
>         why an academic will benefit from doing the same, but I don't
>         want to force that stance upon everyone else.
>          
>         Giorgos
> 
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *From:* commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of
>         Prodromos Tsiavos
>         *Sent:* Tue 3/25/2008 7:03 PM
>         *To:* commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>         *Subject:* Re: [Commons-research] Commons-research Digest, Vol
>         2, Issue 14
> 
>         Dear All,
> 
>         I would side with Alek on this one. Conditioning participation
>         upon a (non
>         exclusive) open licensing scheme is a really thin requirement
>         and it is in
>         accordance to the iSummit's character as an event that promotes
>         open/free
>         culture. If some speakers are not willing to subscribe to such a
>         policy we
>         could individually assess the case, but not amend the open
>         access policy
>         overall. Allowing closed licensing schemes is contrary to the
>         event's nature
>         and poses the risk of diluting its identity.
> 
>         Thanks for your time :)
> 
>         best,
>         pRo
> 
>         ----- Original Message -----
>         From: "Alek Tarkowski" <alek at creativecommons.pl>
>         To: <commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org>
>         Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:03 AM
>         Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Commons-research Digest, Vol 2,
>         Issue 14
> 
> 
>          > Dear Giorgos,
>          >
>          > I am not sure that I agree that there is such a specificity
>         to the
>          > Research Workshop and that furthermore out of the need for
>         what you call
>          > respect as a venue for scientific discourse we need a special
>         licensing
>          > scheme.
>          >
>          > I think that there is a place in the iSummit at large, and
>         not just at
>          > the workshop, for those critical of our mission. At the same
>         time a free
>          > licensing requirement is in my opinion not some extravagant,
>         radical
>          > concept - and most importantly, it does not constrain the
>         expression of
>          > any critical arguments. Personally I consider it a quite
>         formal and
>          > quite minimal requirement (of course, I'm biased!). But maybe
>         it's good
>          > to face those weary of free licensing to weight the pros and
>         cons: if
>          > they are studying the commons, it should be worthwhile for
>         them to
>          > attend, even at the price of giving in to this licensing model.
>          >
>          > I think we should be careful with the extent to which we pull
>         out of the
>          > model accepted for the summit at large in the name of scientific
>          > specificity. I would like to think that Open Science is an
>         important
>          > part of the commons movement - which proves that the free
>         culture model
>          > can mix well with rules of scientific discourse / conduct.
>          >
>          > Cheers,
>          >
>          > Alek
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          > Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
>          >> Thanks James,
>          >>
>          >> the only part from the link you sent which is relevant and
>         actually
>          >> important for the research track is the licensing part which
>         requires
>          >> that all submissions be licensed under CC BY 3.0. I am
>         personally
>          >> undecided on this one. A common practice in academic circles
>         would be
>          >> that the author agrees in advance that the submission will
>         be published
>          >> in a specific manner (online open access in this case), but
>         without
>          >> additional requirements on the public licensing of the
>         content. I
>          >> understand that licensing under CC is fitting for the
>         isummit, but I'd
>          >> hate to miss out on potentially very good submissions from
>         folks who for
>          >> a variety of reasons don't want to use this license.
>          >>
>          >> You see, as I explained in my last email, the iSummit as a
>         whole may have
>          >> a mission of promoting CC/free culture, but the Research
>         Workshop needs
>          >> to maintain some degree of neutrality and be open to all
>         viewpoints, if
>          >> it is to be respected as a venue for scientific discourse.
>         So, yes to
>          >> open access, and the proceedings will be published online,
>         but is it wise
>          >> to try and force a CC-BY on everyone?
>          >>
>          >> I do not have the answer to this. I'm just wary of adding
>          >> "agenda-motivated" constraints to the research workshop,
>         even if I
>          >> personally support that agenda.
>          >>
>          >> Giorgos
>          >>
>          >> ________________________________
>          >>
>          >> From: commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf
>         of James
>          >> Cairns
>          >> Sent: Tue 3/25/2008 1:31 PM
>          >> To: commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >> Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Commons-research Digest, Vol
>         2, Issue 14
>          >>
>          >>
>          >>
>          >> There are terms and conditions here
>          >>
>         <http://www.icommons.org/isummit08/submissions-terms-and-conditions/>
>         -
>          >> have a look at the licensing section at the bottom as this
>         is what may
>          >> have an effect on your discussion. I agree with what Giorgos
>         says below
>          >> about getting people outside of the commons to take part...
>          >>
>          >> Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
>          >>
>          >>> I don't know whether the iSummit/iCommons have a policy on
>         this, but
>          >>> let's remember that the research track, like any research
>          >>> workshop/conference hopes to attract people beyond the
>         "usual suspects"
>          >>> of CC/icommons circles and some degree of flexibility may
>         be warranted.
>          >>>
>          >>> By that I mean that if we have a great submission by
>         someone who is
>          >>> highly critical of CC and let's say he/she is also very
>         skeptical when
>          >>> it comes to open access, but is making a strong case for
>         his/her
>          >>> position and that position is backed by some solid
>         research, then this
>          >>> may be a person we will want to have presenting at the
>         research track.
>          >>> So, I guess all I'm saying is let's try to reach out beyond the
>          >>> community and give people the flexibility to present their
>         research as
>          >>> they wish, within some commonly accepted bounds. Some kind
>         of speaker
>          >>> agreement may be a suitable tool for this purpose.
>          >>> <http://pml.wikidot.com/>
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>> ________________________________
>          >>>
>          >>> From: commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf
>         of Jessica
>          >>> Coates
>          >>> Sent: Tue 3/25/2008 10:02 AM
>          >>> To: commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>> Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Commons-research Digest,
>         Vol 2, Issue 14
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>> We can presumably have some kind of speaker agreement, that
>         asks them to
>          >>> indicate whether they are happy for their materials to be made
>          >>> available, and if so how.
>          >>>
>          >>> Unless the iSummit has a global policy on this.
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>> Jessica Coates
>          >>> Project Manager
>          >>> Creative Commons Clinic
>          >>> Queensland University of Technology
>          >>>
>          >>> ph: 07 3138 8301
>          >>> fax: 07 3138 9598
>          >>> email: j2.coates at qut.edu.au
>          >>>
>          >>> -----Original Message-----
>          >>> From: commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>> [mailto:commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On
>         Behalf Of
>          >>> commons-research-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2008 3:21 AM
>          >>> To: commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>> Subject: Commons-research Digest, Vol 2, Issue 14
>          >>>
>          >>> Send Commons-research mailing list submissions to
>          >>>         commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>>
>          >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>          >>>        
>         http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>          >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>          >>>         commons-research-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>>
>          >>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>          >>>         commons-research-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>>
>          >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
>         specific
>          >>> than "Re: Contents of Commons-research digest..."
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>> Today's Topics:
>          >>>
>          >>>    1. Re: (almost) final CFP (Giorgos Cheliotis)
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>>
>         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>          >>>
>          >>> Message: 1
>          >>> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:45:41 +0800
>          >>> From: "Giorgos Cheliotis" <giorgos at smu.edu.sg>
>          >>> Subject: Re: [Commons-research] (almost) final CFP
>          >>> To: <commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org>
>          >>> Message-ID:
>          >>>        
>         <FA3090E732DC6A4EB8E2D875EEB486A58C4515 at EX01.staff.smu.edu.sg>
>          >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>          >>>
>          >>> Good point, so far we make it clear that the extended
>         abstracts will be
>          >>> published online, but haven't specified anything for the
>         presentation
>          >>> slides. People will be likely making last-minute edits to
>         their slides
>          >>> shortly before they present, so this would be something I
>         would prefer
>          >>> to bring up during the workshop.
>          >>>
>          >>> Also, some researchers may not want to share their slides,
>         for example
>          >>> if these contain very early results, so I think we could
>         bring this up
>          >>> during the workshop and discuss possible objections to
>         this, if any. I
>          >>> support open access, but I'm also sensitive to the reasons
>         why some
>          >>> people may not want to make all their presentation material
>         publicly
>          >>> available, so perhaps we can have an opt-out system where
>         open access to
>          >>> presentation files is the default and if someone wants to
>         opt out they
>          >>> can express this during the workshop.
>          >>>
>          >>> Sounds reasonable?
>          >>>
>          >>> ________________________________
>          >>>
>          >>> From: commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf
>         of Gavin
>          >>> Baker
>          >>> Sent: Mon 3/24/2008 12:22 AM
>          >>> To: commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>> Subject: Re: [Commons-research] (almost) final CFP
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>> May I suggest that the CFP include a statement that
>         accepted researchers
>          >>> will be expected to provide a copy of their presentation
>         for free
>          >>> distribution online?
>          >>>
>          >>> I think it is valuable to be explicit and up-front about
>         open access; in
>          >>> this way, open access becomes the norm.
>          >>>
>          >>> Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>>> Dear all,
>          >>>>
>          >>>> please take a look at the *latest and almost final CFP*.
>         This will
>          >>>> debut
>          >>>> soon on the icommons site but first I want to pass it
>         through all of
>          >>>> you
>          >>>> quickly to check for mistakes and ask for your general
>         feedback.
>          >>>>
>          >>>> Jonathan Zittrain has agreed to chair the workshop, and I
>         think he is a
>          >>>> wonderful fit for that role. As his bandwidth is limited I
>         will help
>          >>>> him
>          >>>> as co-chair and for now I'm still the main driver of the
>         CFP in any
>          >>>> case. I have also asked Tyng-Ruey Chuang to co-chair given his
>          >>>> excellent
>          >>>> organization of the Asian Commons meeting this year and
>         his links to
>          >>>> the
>          >>>> broader Asian academic community. As he has recent
>         hands-on experience
>          >>>> with organizing a very successful workshop and the iSummit
>         this year
>          >>>> will be in Asia, I thought that Tyng-Ruey will be of great
>         assistance,
>          >>>> and indeed he has already started contributing greatly.
>          >>>>
>          >>>> There is some more additions to the academic program
>         committee, to
>          >>>> increase international representation and the mix of
>         senior vs more
>          >>>> junior scholars. Please do check that your name and
>         affiliation are
>          >>>> correct and appear where they should.
>          >>>>
>          >>>> I hope that the above arrangement and the text in the CFP
>         is acceptable
>          >>>> by most, if not by all. Do send any comments that you may
>         have. Plans
>          >>>> for the speed-geeking session are also underway.
>          >>>>
>          >>>> Please also note in the CFP under "Workshop Format" a short
>          >>>> paragraph suggesting that members of the academic program
>         committee
>          >>>> will
>          >>>> be able to submit work as well, but will be subject to the
>         same review
>          >>>> process and their participation in the committee will not
>         guarantee
>          >>>> acceptance.
>          >>>>
>          >>>>
>          >>>> best,
>          >>>> Giorgos
>          >>>>
>          >>>>
>          >>>>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>          >>>>
>          >>>> _______________________________________________
>          >>>> Commons-research mailing list
>          >>>> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>          >>>>
>          >>>>
>          >>> --
>          >>> Gavin Baker
>          >>> http://www.gavinbaker.com/
>          >>> gavin at gavinbaker.com
>          >>>
>          >>> What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble
>         causes and
>          >>> to make this muddled world a better place for those who
>         will live in it
>          >>> after we are gone?
>          >>>      Winston Churchill
>          >>> _______________________________________________
>          >>> Commons-research mailing list
>          >>> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>> -------------- next part --------------
>          >>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>          >>> Name: not available
>          >>> Type: application/ms-tnef
>          >>> Size: 6494 bytes
>          >>> Desc: not available
>          >>> Url :
>          >>>
>         http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/commons-research/attachments/20080324/3f661584/attachment-0001.bin
>          >>>
>          >>> ------------------------------
>          >>>
>          >>> _______________________________________________
>          >>> Commons-research mailing list
>          >>> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>> End of Commons-research Digest, Vol 2, Issue 14
>          >>> ***********************************************
>          >>> _______________________________________________
>          >>> Commons-research mailing list
>          >>> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>          >>>
>          >>> _______________________________________________
>          >>> Commons-research mailing list
>          >>> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>
>          >>
>          >> --
>          >> James Cairns
>          >>
>          >> maczomba at mac.com <mailto:maczomba at mac.com> or james at icommons.org
>          >> <mailto:james at icommons.org>
>          >> +27(0)833003350
>          >> skype: maczomba
>          >>
>          >> _______________________________________________
>          >> Commons-research mailing list
>          >> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>          >>
>          >>
>          >>
>          >>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>          >>
>          >> _______________________________________________
>          >> Commons-research mailing list
>          >> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>          >>
>          >
>          >
>          > --
>          > koordynator / public lead
>          > Creative Commons Polska / Poland
>          > http://creativecommons.pl <http://creativecommons.pl/>
>          > skype: alektarkowski
>          >
>          > _______________________________________________
>          > Commons-research mailing list
>          > Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>          > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
> 
> 
>         Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>         communications disclaimer:
>         http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
>         _______________________________________________
>         Commons-research mailing list
>         Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
>         http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
> 
> 
>     Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>     communications disclaimer:
>     http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
> 
> 
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic 
> communications disclaimer: 
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-research mailing list
> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research



More information about the Commons-research mailing list