Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

commons-research - Re: [Commons-research] Commons-research Digest, Vol 2, Issue 14

commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Commons-research mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Giorgos Cheliotis" <giorgos AT smu.edu.sg>
  • To: <commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Commons-research Digest, Vol 2, Issue 14
  • Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:37:11 +0800

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we are not an IEEE conference on X or similar, we do not publish book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
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 :
>>>
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/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

<<winmail.dat>>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page