This is why the only way to make a document freely available and
replicable in a distributed library is to associate a licence. It is
certainly necessary to provide standard minimal licences, because
authors do not want to be bothered.
Possibly a licence could be associated with the fact of placing a
paper in a repository, but the author should at least click somewhere.
And the legal value of a licence may depend on geopgraphic location.
Bernard
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 12:24:06PM -0000, Graham P Cornish wrote:
> I seems to me that the problem with copyright is that you have it whether or
> not you want to use it. Those who want to use what you own have no way of
> telling whether or not you want to enforce your rights or not, or to what
> degree you might wish to enforce or waive them. What is needed is an
> internationally recognised system for indicating just what owners are happy
> to allowin different circumstances. I hope to be working with an
> international agency on thisissue shortly.
>
> GrahamP Cornish
> Copyright consultant
> Graham_at_copyrightcircle.co.uk
> www.coyrightcircle.co.uk
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bernard Lang" <Bernard.Lang_at_inria.fr>
> To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:03 AM
> Subject: Re: "Copyleft" article in New Scientist
>
>
> > I do agree that toll-free access is the only essential issue, at this
> > time, and that mixing it with free software or open-content licences can
> > only muddle the issues ... at least where public discussions are
> > concerned, and current public action.
> >
> > Considering alternative licences is however an interesting topic,
> > and ON A PERSONAL BASIS, authors can well chose to grant even more
> > freedom than called for by advocates of toll-free access to the
> > peer-reviewed research literature. I personally do allow people to
> > modify my papers, as long as it is clear who wrote what. Basically,
> > it allows for direct reuse of fragments of papers in other work. Just
> > my choice.
> >
> > I am also concerned with fighting the data-base legislation, which
> > can also get in the way.
> >
> > My licence is at:
> >
> > http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/licence/v1/fddl.html
> >
> > If you are interested in variations and analyses of licences, for
> > text and other types of resources ... see
> >
> > http://aful.org/presentations/licences/
> >
> > The page is in French, but it refers to documents in French and
> > English. I unfortunately cannot handle other languages. It has four
> > sections: licences for software, licences for text and/or for artistic
> > content, references to other sites, references to documents analyzing
> > licences.
> >
> > I would like to point out that for textbooks, when the author is
> > WILLING, the situation is much like software. Textbooks are often
> > complex, and there are documents and management tools very similar to
> > what would constitute source code. Also, textbook often need
> > maintenance, to correct mistakes, make addition, follow the evolution
> > of the field, adapt to a specific teaching situation.
> > Free-software-like licences are then very useful.
> >
> > I do know one case of an author fighting to get his textbook out of
> > the clutches of the publisher. The reason is that the textbook needs
> > maintenance to survive, and he no longer has the time to do it
> > himself, nor has anyone else, given the huge size of the book. The only
> > manageable solution is to let experts separately improve the sections
> > for which they are competent: This is pretty much an encyclopedia of
> > internet programming. Encyclopedias are actually a good example of
> > cooperative creation in the text world.
> >
> > More generally, similar issues arise regarding the creation, evolution
> > and maintenance of educational resources.
> >
> > But I do agree that these are problems quite different from the specific
> > on of toll-free access to the refereed research literature.
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:21:39PM +0000, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Seth Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay. As long as you're dealing with expressive wholes,
> > > > you're standing on legal precedent.
> > > >
> > > > It would help if some stipulations were made to assure that
> > > > it's clear you're talking about the original presentations,
> > > > presentations to which the author asserts authoritative
> > > > origin, and presentations of originality that may be false.
> > > > The factual elements of any expressive work are fair game.
> > > > This is essential from the standpoint of free online
> > > > collaboration.
> > >
> > > Here is a good rule of thumb for advocates of toll-free access to the
> > > peer-reviewed research literature:
> > >
> > > Don't aspire to be more royalist than the king, or more papist than the
> > > pope!
> > >
> > > What was enough for those who got access via tolls should also be enough
> > > for those who get access toll-free. No need to stipulate any more.
> > >
> > > OF COURSE the readers of articles in peer-reviewed journals are
> > > free to take the ideas and findings in those articles and build on them
> > > as they see fit in their own work. That's the very reason why the
> > > researchers published it in the first place!
> > >
> > > What we are referring to here is not the ideas and findings that are
> > > reported. Their usability was never in dispute. We are talking here
> > > about access to the TEXT. And it is the TEXT that may not be corrupted,
> > > or assigned a false authorship.
> > >
> > > (Moreover, using findings without citing their source is not a violation
> > > of copyright, though it may be exposable and punishable as violation
> > > of priority or even plagiarism in other senses.)
> > >
> > > These confusions come, again, I think, because of putting too much
> > > weight on the weak analogies between access to text and access to other
> > > things, such as software or music, and perhaps also on weak analogies
> > > between copyright and patent. When this happens, we are dealing with
> > > MISanalogies and not analogies, and we are better to remind ourselves
> > > of what the "use" of refereed journal articles has been all along,
> > > independent of whether it was accessed for-fee or for-free.
> > >
> > > Stevan Harnad
> >
> > --
> > Non aux Brevets Logiciels - No to Software Patents
> > SIGNEZ http://petition.eurolinux.org/ SIGN
> >
> > Bernard.Lang_at_inria.fr ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644
> > http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469
> > INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
> > Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
> > CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
--
Non aux Brevets Logiciels - No to Software Patents
SIGNEZ http://petition.eurolinux.org/ SIGN
Bernard.Lang_at_inria.fr ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
Received on Tue Feb 12 2002 - 20:36:06 GMT