Difference between revisions of "BOAI/Section2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→2.1) |
|||
| (13 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. |
| + | *'''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 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. | + | *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
