Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - SV: License for scholarly or scientific papers

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe <Hugo.Alroe AT agrsci.dk>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: SV: License for scholarly or scientific papers
  • Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:30:26 +0200

One more aspect, which I forgot to mention, is that preprints (the
preliminary versions of scientific articles that the authors typically
distribute to a group of colleagues and/or submits to a scientific journal,
and which are now sometimes self-archived in open archives) are often marked
with a restriction like: "Preprint, do not quote", or similar. This
particular phrase is somewhat silly, because you allow people to read and be
influenced, but not to quote the source. But there is good reason to mark a
preprint with something like:"Preprint, quote as preliminary work".

In terms of the Creative Commons licences, this would correspond to a "Quote
as Preliminary" condition.

Any arguments for or against adding such a condition?

Kind regards
Hugo Alroe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe
Postdoctoral Scientist
Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming - www.darcof.dk
Administrator of Organic Eprints at http://orgprints.org
Forskningscenter Foulum
Postboks 50, DK-8830 Tjele
Email: hugo.alroe¤agrsci.dk [replace ¤ with @]
Phone: +45 8999 1679
Fax: +45 8999 1673
Personal workpage: http://hugo.alroe.dk/


> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe
> Sendt: 15. september 2003 12:55
> Til: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
> Emne: SV: License for scholarly or scientific papers
>
>
> 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?
>
> Kind regards
> Hugo Alroe
>



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page