<div dir="ltr">Before we get trapped into the technical details, I think we must welcome the spirit of Jeroen's wisth list and of Heather's challenge. Thank you so much. <div><br></div><div>CC-BY does have that kind of potential problem. The free software community saw that coming and invented copyleft. CC-BY-SA sort that out, I think. </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 8 April 2015 at 09:06, Peter Murray-Rust <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:04 PM, David Prosser <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.prosser@rluk.ac.uk" target="_blank">david.prosser@rluk.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>> Jeroen - CC-BY license<br>
><br>
> Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility of re-enclosure. ...<br>
<br>
</span><span class="">I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument. If, for whatever reason, I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article freely available. I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing unlimited distribution provided there is attribution.<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br></span></blockquote><div> </div><div>I completely agree with David. If HeatherM can show us that total enclosure has ever actually occurred we need to know. The conditions are almost inconceivable:<br></div><div>* a commercial company encloses the *published* CC-BY article. It strips off the licence (thereby breaking the contract).<br></div><div>* the world destroys or loses ALL other copies of the manuscript. It then forgets that this manuscript ever existed as CC-BY.<br><br></div><div>Only then does the illegally enclosed object represent monopoly control. <br><br></div><div>In the normal case there are always copies of the un-enclosed article available for free use, re-use, modification and redistribution<br></div><div><br></div><div>P.<br><br></div><div>[Far more serious is the following scenario which happens frequently enough to be really serious. A traditional toll-access publisher accepts payment from an author/funder for CC-BY licensing. It then publishes the manuscript without CC-BY and under a more (often completely) restrictive licence. Only the author/funder knows that the m/s should be CC-BY. Unless they publish this information (as Wellcome Trust and some libraries did last year) the m/s will remain closed and will continue to be resold. And early copies , before the discovery, will probably still circulate with "All rights reserved". ]<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br><a href="tel:%2B44-1223-763069" value="+441223763069" target="_blank">+44-1223-763069</a></div>
</font></span></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Jacinto Dávila<br><a href="http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto" target="_blank">http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto</a></div>
</div>