[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