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

[Heather Morrison]

Thank you for raising the question of educational use, Marc.

One reason authors and funders may prefer licenses with non-commercial terms is specifically to avoid giving rights to for-profit firms in the educational sector, such as for-profit colleges, universities, and vendors of for-profit resources and services for the educational market.

Some of us support public education and/ or private not-for-profit education. (Neither Harvard nor the former Trump University were public, but they were never the same kind of institution).

best,

Heather Morrison




-------- Original message --------
From: Couture Marc <marc.couture at teluq.ca>
Date: 2017-01-23 10:54 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

Stephen Downes wrote :

“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”

I find this interpretation a bit extreme, considering that:

- The CC BY work for which payment is required must be attributed, and this attribution normally includes (at least in the case of online distribution) a link to the original source https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Best_practices_for_attribution .

- The first person, or institution paying the access fee can then freely (in all senses) distribute the work online.

Not considering fraudulent activities (e.g. not mentioning the license, which violates the terms of the licence), which could be done for any version of the CC license, one could certainly find cases (best practices not followed; print copies) where one would have to do a little work to find the original work (nothing more though than a Google search with the title). In any event, I wouldn’t describe such a work as being “not free at all”.

On the other hand, the problem with the -NC condition is that the definition of non-commercial is quite vague, so that one can easily imagine uses that authors wishing to impede profit-seeking uses would also prevent others they wouldn’t object to. Stephen mentions educational uses, but many of them could well be considered commercial (for instance, in private institutions, or even public ones, if students pay documentation fees).

Recent lawsuits, in Germany and in the US, illustrate the problem.

- Germany: “non-commercial” equates “private use only” (2014 decision appealed, still waiting for the outcome) http://merlin.obs.coe.int/article.php?id=14679

- US: Public school disctrict subcontracting reproduction and distribution of print copies to private firm (2016 case yet to be heard) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160902/00165835421/creative-commons-wants-to-step-into-lawsuit-over-definition-noncommercial-cc-license.shtml

Marc Couture


De : goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] De la part de Downes, Stephen
Envoyé : 23 janvier 2017 09:46
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : 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.

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> [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/ba3c2da7/attachment.html