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 -----
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or similar, we do not publish book proceedings, and this is a workshop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 -----
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
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
|