I was referring to the first license below, Les. It has very few restrictions.
One could use the CC0 license, which dedicates the work to the public domain,
but almost all scientists want attribution, since that is the currency of
non-commercial intellectual work. This is why I would reject the pure public
domain status of research publications that are the result of government funded
research, as suggested by Michael Eisen. There are other reasons to treat the
pure public domain option with scepticism, but that is the main one in my view.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Leslie Carr
Sent: Sun 2/21/2010 4:52 PM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Captured product vs. service
On 21 Feb 2010, at 20:56, Uhlir, Paul wrote:
> In response to your last question, yes, if the article is made available under
an "Attribution Only" (ATT 3.0) Creative Commons license. This is the
recommended license for open access journals and is already broadly in use. The
advantage of this license is that it also allows various types of automated
knowledge discovery.
>
CC licenses are not without restrictions!
By "Attribution Only" do you mean
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ ?
---
Les Carr
Received on Mon Feb 22 2010 - 03:15:59 GMT