Dear all,

I agree with Federico (Nemo) on this.
This example : openedition's journal TIC&Societe (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) :
"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@revues.org ; ticetsociete@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@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%22filtered%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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess