License reference the Open Access movement she rests on a misunderstanding? | Common Sciences
abernard102@gmail.com 2014-01-29
Summary:
[From Google's English] "This is a bombshell: the license reference open access movement had been partly misunderstood. And long.
For several years, the license CC-BY Creative Commons has gradually become the sole legal status recommended for open access publishing. The Budapest Declaration 2012 is unambiguous: 'Whenever possible, the policies of holders of scientific publications should preferably under a CC-BY license or equivalent.' This license is very liberal: all reuses are possible subject to quote the authors. It would be possible to sell the original publication (which would not allow a non-commercial license). It would even be possible to republish under a different license, or under the usual regime of copyright without the consent of the authors.
This liberality is based on a philosophical principle: do not prejudge the use and no limit. It also follows from more practical considerations. The CC-BY license would greatly facilitate commercial operations.
Companies could not only monetize the publication but also the privatization, which helps to recreate value. A better indexed and commercial service could make the reader believe that the publication is paid, while only further research would detect free original version ..."