Difference between revisions of "BOAI/Section2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | '''[[BOAI|Back to INDEX]]''' | |
| − | ==2.1== | + | ==Budapest Open Access Initiative - On licensing and reuse== |
| − | *We recommend CC-BY or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work. | + | |
| − | *OA repositories typically depend on permissions from others, such as authors or publishers, and are rarely in a position to require open licenses. *However, policy makers in a position to direct deposits into repositories should require open licenses, preferably CC-BY, when they can. | + | ===2.1=== |
| − | *OA journals are always in a position to require open licenses, yet most of them do not yet take advantage of the opportunity. We recommend CC-BY for all OA journals. | + | *We recommend [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 CC-BY] or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work. |
| − | *In developing strategy and setting priorities, we recognize that gratis access is better than priced access, libre access is better than gratis access, and libre under CC-BY or the equivalent is better than libre under more restrictive open licenses. | + | *OA repositories typically depend on permissions from others, such as authors or publishers, and are rarely in a position to require open licenses. |
| − | *We should achieve what we can when we can. We should not delay achieving gratis in order to achieve libre, and we should not stop with gratis when we can achieve libre. | + | *'''However, policy makers in a position to direct deposits into repositories should require open licenses, preferably [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 CC-BY], when they can.''' |
| + | *OA journals are always in a position to require open licenses, yet most of them do not yet take advantage of the opportunity. | ||
| + | *We recommend [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 CC-BY] for all OA journals. | ||
| + | *In developing strategy and setting priorities, we recognize that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis gratis] access is better than priced access, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre libre] access is better than gratis access, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre libre] under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 CC-BY] or the equivalent is better than [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre libre] under more restrictive open licenses. | ||
| + | *We should achieve what we can when we can. | ||
| + | *We should not delay achieving [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis gratis] in order to achieve libre, and we should not stop with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis gratis] when we can achieve libre. | ||
| + | '''[[BOAI|Back to INDEX]]''' | ||
Latest revision as of 14:34, 26 September 2012
Back to INDEX
Budapest Open Access Initiative - On licensing and reuse
2.1
- We recommend CC-BY or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work.
- OA repositories typically depend on permissions from others, such as authors or publishers, and are rarely in a position to require open licenses.
- However, policy makers in a position to direct deposits into repositories should require open licenses, preferably CC-BY, when they can.
- OA journals are always in a position to require open licenses, yet most of them do not yet take advantage of the opportunity.
- We recommend CC-BY for all OA journals.
- In developing strategy and setting priorities, we recognize that gratis access is better than priced access, libre access is better than gratis access, and libre under CC-BY or the equivalent is better than libre under more restrictive open licenses.
- We should achieve what we can when we can.
- We should not delay achieving gratis in order to achieve libre, and we should not stop with gratis when we can achieve libre.
Back to INDEX
