<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
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.<br></blockquote><br>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.<br>
<br>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.)<br>
<br>All that said I totally support the goal of the CC license, just not the execution.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Alan Cox <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" target="_blank">alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">> 1. Am I missing something in the legal code, i.e. does it say somewhere that this license is only for open access works?<br>
<br>
</div>CC isn't a specialised licence. It's genericity is its power.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 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).<br>
<br>
</div>Not really. If you want to preserve its freedom you proably want<br>
CC-BY-SA. However the underlying argument I think is that if you have a<br>
CC-BY copy then that grants the recipient of that copy a set of rights to<br>
make more copies, so there is an economic spiral to zero unless the<br>
re-seller is offering a value. I could sell locked up copies but you'd go<br>
get one from someone else who has a CC-BY copy.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 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).<br>
<br>
</div>If the publisher owns the work then the author already lost control.<br>
However you can't generally "unlicense" something. So once a CC-BY copy<br>
is out there you can't really swat it and make it go away, merely offer<br>
other licences. The parallel licensing model is a common one in some<br>
fields.<br>
<br>
That may not always be true - but consult a lawyer as always on any legal<br>
matters.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
</div>Nothing in CC says that someone who acquires the rights to the work can't<br>
simply burn it. However they can't "unlicense" the existing copies or the<br>
rights that came with those copies to make more CC copies.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Alan<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
List info and archives at <a href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community" target="_blank">http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community</a><br>
Unsubscribe at <a href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community" target="_blank">http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>