[Advocacy Advisors] non-free academic publishing licenses

[Luis Villa]

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 at 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?
>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:27:18 -0700
>> From: Luis Villa <lvilla at wikimedia.org>
>> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA
>>         <advocacy_advisors at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Subject: [Advocacy Advisors] non-free academic publishing licenses
>> Message-ID:
>>         <
>> CAM2wSz5503dZREk43hwMLer2udW7BE0C4AMyy8pOxiUDR_hBPw at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> http://www.technollama.co.uk/academic-publishers-draft-and-release-their-own-open-access-licences#
>>
>> 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-
>> Luis
>>
>> [1] We have piles of materials from legitimately open-licensed journals,
>> like PLOS:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_from_PLOS_journals
>> (seriously,
>> I spent minutes clicking around in there and never got past the letter A,
>> alphabetically)
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140725/914445f8/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>
>>
>> End of Advocacy_Advisors Digest, Vol 25, Issue 26
>> *************************************************
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
> tweet @jonatreesdavies
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
>
> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>


-- 
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
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140726/6e595f4f/attachment-0001.html>