[Open-access] Letter to publishers - URGENT
mike at indexdata.com
Mon Mar 5 16:06:14 GMT 2012
On 5 March 2012 14:33, cameronneylon.net <cn at cameronneylon.net> wrote:
> One minor suggestion...
> Second para suggest replace "and publish the output as CC0" with "and publish the resulting data output under a Creative Commons Zero waiver"
Or indeed just "in the public domain" -- the use of CC0 in particular
seems like unnecessary detail. And we know that at least some
publishers COMPLETELY misunderstand what Creative Commons is -- see
this comment thread:
> On 5 Mar 2012, at 14:14, Douglas Carnall wrote:
>> I humbly offer the following text as a possible revision in the light
>> of this morning's discussion. I hope it is a helpful contribution to
>> the drafting process.
>> Briefly, I have substituted "fundamental" for absolute, replaced
>> "arbitrarily large amounts" with "without limitation", and "whenever
>> they wish" by "entire current" (which means the old footnote 7 becomes
>> the new note 4), and inserted a footnote  on being nice with the
>> server (thus renumbering successive footnotes).
>> I am somewhat aghast at my own temerity in so-doing, and will not be
>> offended in the slightest should anyone decide to hit the revert
>> button. The new introductory paragraph is entirely my invention and
>> could and should be improved by others more knowledgeable than I.
>> Regards to all,
>> Dear [NamedPersonAtOrganisationX],
>> As you know, progress in networked computing currently offers
>> unparalleled opportunities for progress in many areas through the use
>> of textmining algorithms on the existing scholarly literature.
>> [[Required: 1 sentence on potential benefit for humanity. . . [Such
>> techniques could [???speed drug discovery, save scholarly time. . .
>> thus saving lives and generating economic benefits . . . add here] ]]
>> We are writing to several major scholarly publishers to ascertain
>> their current practice in this domain, and plan to collate the replies
>> we receive as part of our submission to the Hargreaves enquiry.
>> We assert that subscribers  have a fundamental right to use
>> machines  to extract facts  from the entire current scholarly
>> literature  in all forms  without limitation  and publish the
>> output as CC0 . This right extends to creating CC0 indexes  and
>> summaries . Publishers have a responsibility to make this process
>> simple and reliable for all subscribers .
>> We would appreciate a clear statement of your support for this
>> important scholarly principle, and for specific details of how
>> [OrganisationName] is furthering scientific progress in this
>> You are also cordially invited to join in the discussion of these
>> issues on the mailing lists and blogs of the okfn. [[provide URLs
>> Thank-you for your response.
>> Yours sincerely,
>> [PMR on behalf of . . . ?]
>> 1. A subscription to a paper artefact allows the reader to extract
>> facts, create indexes and makes summaries without requiring
>> permission. We are asking for this right for legitimate subscribers to
>> electronic journals and other scholarly artifacts.
>> 2. Subject to best network practice in the prevention of server
>> overload by intensive automated requests, i.e. in conformance to any
>> reasonable API service limit.
>> 3. Facts are not copyright.
>> 4. Scholars should be able to extract information as soon as it
>> appears and to delve backwards as far as they wish. They should not be
>> dependent on publishers providing dumps, though this may be a useful
>> additional option.
>> 5. Scholarship expresses facts [at least] as text, numbers, tables,
>> diagrams, images, spoken discourse and video. Machines can reliably
>> extract facts from all of these
>> 6. Limitations on volume are unacceptable, just as they are for human
>> 7. CC0 (Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication) means that the
>> information can be freely used with no restrictions (See
>> 8. There is a traditional right to index the literature. Many indexes
>> are factual, others involve judgment/classification which can now be
>> provided by machines.
>> 9. There is a traditional right to create summaries of works and publish them.
>> 10. No publisher should install robots to block legitimate use by
>> subscribers. No publisher should insert clauses in contracts which
>> militate against the subscribers' rights. No publisher should require
>> individuals to ask for permissions or justify their actions.
>> Douglas Carnall
>> dougie.carnall at gmail.com
>> Traduction vers l'anglais
>> Rédaction de textes en anglais
>> Coaching pour présentations en anglais
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
More information about the open-access