Friends: Here is a message I received from Stevan Harnad in response to my three-line note alerting him about the Science Commons. Arun -------------------------------
Dear Arun (and colleagues):
Science Commons is a wonderful, important project, but *please* don't mix it up (or in) with Open Access! Here is the understanding that we have (I think) reached with Larry Lessig on this topic:
(1) OA is first and foremost about published journal articles.
(2) A CC License is *always* desirable and beneficial if it can be successfully negotiated with the journal publishers.
(3) A CC License, however, is not *necessary* for OA via self-archiving. (92% of journals already endorse self-archiving, and there are ways to self-archive the remaining 8% without either first having to seek permission or to successfully renegotiate a copyright agreement with the publisher).
(4) On the contrary, as authors are still not providing OA via self-archiving in anywhere near sufficient numbers (only 10-20%) it would be a great mistake to ask or imply that they first try to negotiate a CC license with their publishers: They should just self-archive. No need for CC.
So the CC license is a blessing -- and should be strongly supported -- wherever it is readily feasible; but seeking it is an unwelcome extra handicap where it is unnecessary and where even without being burdened with having to try to renegotiate copyright, authors are already far too sluggish about self-archiving (partly because they are afraid it is too burdensome and time-consuming, which it is not, partly because they think it might somehow jeoparize their chances of being published in their journal of choice, which it does not -- *except* if they negotiating a CC license is erroneously recommended as a prerequisite for it!).
What is needed to facilitate Green OA is further information and incentives (about impact advantages), sytematic institutional self-archiving policy (based on record keeping for institutional research output and reseearcher performance evaluation) and clear reassurances (about the absence of any problem with peer review or copyright or preservation) -- *not* unnecessary further burdens such as CC.
The CC License (or something equivalent to it) is intrinsic to the Golden road to OA but *not* to the Green road. We have already had 3 years of needless delay in OA because of one-sided preoccupation with the far narrower, slower and more uncertain Golden road. Please let us not now let the CC license provide a similar distraction and deterrent!
See:
Re: Free Access vs. Open Access "On the Deep Disanalogy Between Text and Software and Between Text and Data Insofar as Free/Open Access is Concerned" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2967.html
"Apercus of WOS Meeting: Making Ends Meet in the Creative Commons" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3797.html
Re: Open Access vs Copyleft? http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4377.html
"Cloture on public-domain solution" (2001) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1713.html
"Copyleft" article in New Scientist (2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1818.html
Open Access vs Open Source/Software (2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2967.html
"Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)" (2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html
"Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights" (2004) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3444.html
Best wishes,
Stevan Harnad