[GOAL] Re: RCUK policy: relationship between green and CC-BY-NC

[Pippa Smart]

To me the policy doesn't contradict itself: it says:

Gold OA must allow commercial reuse
but
Green OA can be restricted to non-commercial reuse only ("without
restrictions on non-commercial re-use" - i.e. without restrictions, so
long as the reuse is non-commercial)

and - so far as I am aware - this is fairly common in other mandates -
i.e. "if we pay publishers for gold OA, then we want it fully
accessible (for commercial and other re-use), but if we don't pay
them, then we will allow them to make commercial use, but insist that
others may be able to make non-commercial reuse without restriction"
Pippa

*****
Pippa Smart
Research Communication and Publishing Consultant
PSP Consulting
3 Park Lane, Appleton, Oxon OX13 5JT, UK
Tel: +44 7775 627688 or +44 1865 864255
email: pippa.smart at gmail.com
Web: www.pspconsulting.org
****
Editor of the ALPSP-Alert, Reviews editor of Learned Publishing
****


On 30 January 2013 15:05, Dan Stowell <dan.stowell at eecs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We're having some discussion in our research group here about the RCUK
> policy, and there's a point of interpretation, which I wonder if you've
> resolved yourselves.
>
> The question is whether RCUK policy on green OA implies a specific
> licence, and in particular whether it implies CC-BY-NC. I don't really
> want to discuss what the policy *should* be, if you don't mind - just
> trying to understand what the policy *is*.
>
> Linked from the RCUK's main outputs page
> <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx>
> are two documents. One is the main policy document
> <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to_Research_Outputs.pdf>
> - it clearly says (sec 4.1) that gold must be CC-BY, while for green
> (sec 4.2) it says "the journal must allow deposit [...] in other
> repositories, without restrictions on non-commercial re-use and within a
> defined period." So it seems clear to me that that is not a positive
> requirement for a specific licence, but a negative requirement that we
> cannot do green OA that bans commercial use. The guidance document
> linked just below it does not narrow down green any further.
>
> However, linked from *the same page* is a presentation
> <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/Thorley_RCUK_November2012.pdf) which
> very clearly (slide 10) says "Green (at least post print) with a maximum
> embargo period of 6(12) months, and CC-BY-NC".
>
> Both of these cannot be true, or else I'm misinterpreting something.
> Does the Thorley presentation contain a mistaken assertion, or a missing
> context?
>
> Thanks
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Dan Stowell
> Postdoctoral Research Assistant
> Centre for Digital Music
> Queen Mary, University of London
> Mile End Road, London E1 4NS
> http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/digitalmusic/people/dans.htm
> http://www.mcld.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal