[GOAL] Re: [cc-community] CC-BY and - or versus - open access

[Matthew Lagoe]

>
> To sum up, my perspective is that CC-BY, while superficially appearing to
> be the embodiment of BOAI, is actually a problematic license with
> significant loopholes and serious thought should be given to this before it
> is recommended as a standard for open access.
>

I totally agree with that and a large number of other people do as well and
it is brought up regularly here, just we get ignored due to politics and
ego's or dismissed as stupid.

Also CC-BY is far from open and nearly wasnt accepted as a DSFG open
license due to the anti-DRM provisions in it, there was supposted to be
some parallel distribution language in it at some point but they removed
it. Don't really know how it squeaked by in the end but that's politics for
you. (The good ol long as I'm free I'm happy you don't need to be free
because your evil argument.)

All that said I totally support the goal of the CC license, just not the
execution.

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > 1.    Am I missing something in the legal code, i.e. does it say
> somewhere that this license is only for open access works?
>
> CC isn't a specialised licence. It's genericity is its power.
>
> > 2.    Is there any reason why a publisher could not use a CC-BY license
> on toll-access works? (Here I am talking about an original publisher, not a
> licensee).
>
> Not really. If you want to preserve its freedom you proably want
> CC-BY-SA. However the underlying argument I think is that if you have a
> CC-BY copy then that grants the recipient of that copy a set of rights to
> make more copies, so there is an economic spiral to zero unless the
> re-seller is offering a value. I could sell locked up copies but you'd go
> get one from someone else who has a CC-BY copy.
>
> > 3.    Is there anything to stop a publisher that uses CC-BY from
> changing their license at a later point in time? (Assuming the license is
> the publisher's, not the author's).
>
> If the publisher owns the work then the author already lost control.
> However you can't generally "unlicense" something. So once a CC-BY copy
> is out there you can't really swat it and make it go away, merely offer
> other licences. The parallel licensing model is a common one in some
> fields.
>
> That may not always be true - but consult a lawyer as always on any legal
> matters.
>
> > 4.    Is there anything to stop a toll-access publisher from purchasing
> an open access publisher that uses CC-BY, and subsequently selling all the
> formerly open access journals under a toll-access model and dropping the
> open access versions? The license would not permit a third party to do
> this, but what I am asking about is if the original licensor sells to
> another publisher.
>
> Nothing in CC says that someone who acquires the rights to the work can't
> simply burn it. However they can't "unlicense" the existing copies or the
> rights that came with those copies to make more CC copies.
>
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120820/077c55d7/attachment.html