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 -----
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 > 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
|