> > The copyleft or "share-alike" principle does not prevent enclosing > > something in a paywall, > > By this fact, it becomes clear that CC-BY-SA is not the "correct" license for > academic work.
Quoting a single line of a longer piece out of context is both mis-leading and rude. If you'd bothered to read past this one line and see the whole argument you might have understood that while it doesn't prevent it directly it undercuts any attempt to "proprietise" by first denying an exclusive right, provided someone, anyone, else has the original piece and makes it available - the original author, their institution, the Internet Archive... It also further udnercuts the incentive to even try because the organisation putting it behind a paywall is not permitted to prevent further dissemination for anyoine who has accessed it through the paywall. We have large numbers of clear examples of how copleft/share-alike works in Free Software. There is very little Libre Software that is not also available gratis. Even where ther are organisations charging for access to derivative versions, the share-alike principle generally prevents them from doing more than charging for their real value-added changes because anyone who pays then gains the right to re-distribute the derivative version. Besides which, my response was about a discussion which concluded that CC-BY was the correcct license. I disagree and argued for CC-BY-SA or in a few cases CC-BY-ND. I explained why CC-BY-NC is not a good license because of its utter lack of clarity in what it means. -- Professor Andrew A Adams [email protected] Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
