Dear all,
I agree with Federico (Nemo) on this.
This example : openedition's journal TIC&Societe
<https://www.openedition.org/5691> (
https://journals.openedition.org/ticetsociete/325) by its focus on
'information and communication technology's and their relations with
society' and 'situated' in "openedition" can hardly be considered
'unconscious' of this mater (lots of researchers, for those I've been in
contact with, know very little about licenses if anything at all).
Yet TIC&Societé chose CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0
To me its related to the way academics relate to their production. Gowers
words were light to me on this (while working on my thesis
<https://framagit.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&snippets=&scope=&search=polished&project_id=27722>)
:
"We’ve gotten used to working away in private and then producing a sort of
polished document in the form of a journal article," Gowers
*If the article is a shining pearl (of knowledge), stored and 'protected'
from dirty materialistic use (-NC) why a pure mind, an academical mind,
would want it "derived" (-ND).*
Of course, I thicken the traits, but from my experience in university, I
may not be that far from it.
You can ask them : ticetsociete(a)revues.org ; ticetsociete(a)openedition.org
(maybe they'd respond to official wikimedians). I'd be very curious to know
if they could be 'flipped' toward more open licenses.
BR
Rudy PATARD (RP87)
On 20 June 2018 at 06:32, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Paul,
I'm not talking of impediments to Wikipedia, but of licenses unsuitable to
reach the academics' own goals. Are you talking about green open access
perhaps? I'm talking about open access journals.
For instance these:
<https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filte
red%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%
3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22_type%22%3A%22journal%22%7D%7D%
2C%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.license.exact%22%3A%22CC%20BY-
NC-ND%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22match_all%
22%3A%7B%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D>
The large majority of CC BY-NC-ND and CC BY-NC "full OA" journals are
owned by few big publishers (De Gruyter Open, Elsevier, T&F and SAGE),
which makes sense because they want to give people the impression of
publishing in OA while actually keeping control of everything. What I can't
understand is why for instance a university would spend money on managing a
journal which is not even OA, with a license which could make it impossible
for the academics themselves to use it.
Federico
Paul S. Wilson, 20/06/2018 03:19:
A true "flaw to address more
decisively" is the unwarranted assumption
that a multitude of authors', researchers', funders', and publishers'
complex choices of a CC BY-NC license (rather than a supposedly always
superior CC-BY license) or any other license is any impediment whatsoever
to Wikipedia's simple core content policies of verifiability, neutral point
of view, and no original research. Granted, Wikidata unilaterally changed
CC-BY to CC-00, but that unauthorized maneuver itself may at least
partially explain the perceived shift to more nuanced content licensing. .
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com
<mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com>> wrote:
This is the OA we like at Wikimedia: CC-BY everywhere!
I wonder why the uptick in CC BY-NC articles since 2016, though.
That's a flaw to address more decisively.
Federico
_______________________________________________
OpenAccess mailing list
OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess