On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:01, Luis Villa <lvilla@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Probably a little bit of both.
>
> On the more-or-less innocent side, some academic institutions are genuinely worried about some "new" aspects of information reuse that this partially addresses, like data mining/data extraction. I think this is just a phase and they'll grow out of it, but we (free/open community) have not yet done a great job addressing why freedom to do data mining is important.
>
> On the "pull the wool" side, this is damaging to interoperability and republishing - both of which are important to us and very scary to the publishing industry. So the publishers (and this is definitely an initiative from publishers) have a lot of incentive to constantly try to redefine "open access" until they can break it with those terms.
>
> The letter we've been asked to join focuses primarily on the interoperability argument, which I think is appropriate for them; the blog post I'm thinking about would be more focused on intellectual freedom.
>
> Luis
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Jon Davies <jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> Would really be worth calling them out on this. Perhaps they are just Innocent or perhaps trying to pull the wool?
>
>

Rather than being particularly confrontational, it might be better to address our own communit(y|ies) and thus address-by-reference academia and publishers.

If we write up a clear ruling on Commons, stating that any STM licenses or other licenses with STM riders are not free and may not be uploaded to commons, this addresses our contributors.