[GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Downes, Stephen]

> Some open access advocates do equate OA with the CC-BY license, but not all of us. My perspective is that pushing for ubiquitous CC-BY is a major strategic error for the OA movement.

I also have been arguing that CC-by-NC ought to be considered equally acceptable. Open access licenses prior to Creative Commons sought typically to prevent commercial appropriation of openly published work. From the perspective of a person wishing to access content, a work that is CC-by, but which requires payment to access, is not free at all, in either sense. This is especially important in the context of open educational resources.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Downes

National Research Council Canada | Conseil national de recherches Canada
1200 rue Montreal Road 349 M-50, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6
Tel.: (613) 993 0288  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
Stephen.Downes at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca<mailto:Stephen.Downes at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> ~ http://www.downes.ca<http://www.downes.ca/>



From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: January-23-17 8:19 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Some open access advocates do equate OA with the CC-BY license, but not all of us. My perspective is that pushing for ubiquitous CC-BY is a major strategic error for the OA movement. Key arguments:

Granting blanket downstream commercial re-use rights allows for downstream toll access whether or a one-off or broad-based scale.

Examples (broad-based at end):...


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170123/3e624a81/attachment.html