[Advocacy Advisors] non-free academic publishing licenses

Luis Villa lvilla at wikimedia.org
Fri Jul 25 21:27:18 UTC 2014

Hi, all-

An academic publishing group called STM (The International Association of
Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers) has published some "open"
licenses that, well, aren't really open. In my reading, they fail both the
OKFN's open definition and freedomdefined.org's definition, so would not be
acceptable on Commons or other WMF projects.

Andrés Guadamuz has written about this more here:

I'm considering drafting a WMF blog post on this issue, because of the
potential for confusion and the limitations on reuse[1]. I've also been
made aware of a potential letter on the subject from a variety of related
organizations that we'll consider signing on to.

This is not advocacy per se, since it is a private group and not a
government, but I wanted to give you all a heads up in case you were asked
about it by publishers or other people in the open access movement.

Have a great weekend-

[1] We have piles of materials from legitimately open-licensed journals,
like PLOS:
I spent minutes clicking around in there and never got past the letter A,

Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140725/914445f8/attachment.html>

More information about the Advocacy_Advisors mailing list