On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:01, Luis Villa <lvilla(a)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(a)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. A friendly blog article explaining exactly why these are not-free again
addresses our community. And both can then be cited by anyone who wants point out to STM
why these should not be promulgated.
From my own pov, letters and blog entries which come across as freevangelism are rarely
used in discussions except among the choir members.
Amgine