ml at creativecommons.org
Tue Dec 13 23:12:54 EST 2011
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I doubt you're referring to that use of OA if you're saying it is like
>> SaaS. What am I missing?
> Think about it this way: What can you do with an Open Access text (in
> the standard "unmitigated" version, or with something like
> CC-By-NC-ND)? Basically you can read it. In the latter case, you can
> share it.
> Well, what can you do with a SaaS site? Typically, you can use the
> tool (in some cases, for free, like with Gmail etc.!) - and perhaps
> you can send a link to the tool to your friends (Google Docs). The
> one thing you can't do is modify the tool!
> More clear now? :)
Yes! Even a useful new way to explain both situations, thanks. :)
But I think most people would say that advocating for full OA is
fighting for OA, not taking a stance against it. Two recent examples
arguing for full OA are
... I guess one could think of such as taking a stance against not
fully OA practices, but thinking of them as taking a stance against OA
would be weird.
The debate about how hard to press for full OA, which is constantly
going on various blogs and lists, is certainly pertinent to decisions
made in 4.0. Along with many educational resources (OER) and public
sector information (PSI) it is the classic "publicly funded and
otherwise intended for public benefit" case.
> (By the way, of course there is the exceptional case of a
> software-as-service tool that is also free software. However that's
> not what most people think of when they think of "software as
> service". I wasn't confused, just confusing, sorry!)
>> Tangentially, though people associated with the FSF have spoken
>> against SaaS, it is incorrect to say the AGPL takes a stance against
> You're right!
> It takes a stance against the "SaaS loophole" in the GPL!
More information about the cc-community