Open Access stands for unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse. ((Definition by Public Library of Science (PLoS)))
As discussed earlier in this blog it is obvious that non-commercial and non-derivatives licenses do not comply with the requirements of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the RCUK Open Access policy and the Berlin Declaration. All these licences have to be considered as totally incompatible with “Open Access” publishing.
If you look at the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the new Directory of Open Access Monographs (DOAB), you will find most of the publications listed are using non-commercial and non-derivatives licenses which are not open in Terms of the Definition of “Open”. Even if the metadata in DOAJ and DOAB is licensed under an open license (CC-BY-SA), they do not list true “Open Access” publications as they promise. These two open access directories are just two of many examples of an ongoing threat of the idea of unrestricted access and reuse of academic publications.
Examples for true open licenses for content are:
- Creative Commons licenses – but only Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY), Attribution-Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) and Zero (CC-0)
- Open Publication License
- Against DRM license
- GNU Free Documentation License
- Open Game License (a license designed for role-playing games)
- Free Art License
This is a fundamental issue on how all of us present, practice and communicate Open Access. Be aware of that and if you do Open Access publishing, do it with a real open license! That is the only way to promote Open Access as it was intended. CC-NC and all the other non-derivate and non-commercial (like CC-ND, De Gruyter Open Library license…) licenses are totally incompatible with the idea of “Open Access” publishing and just help publishers to save their odd business models. Please consider this before you just pretend to publish “open”…