Re: ALPSP creates model Grant of Licence for journal articles

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_COGLIT.ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:41:59 -0500

On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:21:45 -0600, Ransdell, Joseph M. <ransdell_at_DOOR.NET> wrote:

>My reading is not incorrect. They say explicitly "the bits in square
>brackets are intended to be optional". The public server clause is in
>square brackets. That means they are not taking a stand on that. That
>is what I said explicitly in my message.

My endorsement of the ALPSP copyright agreement was intended only for the
full text, not for any omissions. I agree with Professor Ransdell that if
the bracketed passages were omitted the agreement sounds weaker, but as the
author retains copyright, it is not clear that it even has to be explicitly
mentioned that that entitles him to self-archive publicly if he wishes.
Moreover, university servers are public, and there is nothing in the agreement
requiring or implying that they be otherwise.

Upon re-reading, there is, however, one passage that worries me:

  "as long as you do not sell it [or give it away] in ways which would
   conflict directly with our commercial business interest"

This sounds like a weasel clause, and here I would strike out the "or
give it away" to make sure it cannot be invoked in any court to block public
self-archiving (which most definitely will conflict directly with
commercial business interests).

Stevan Harnad
Received on Wed Feb 10 1999 - 19:17:43 GMT