Slashdot Mirror

Both CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-SA have never been clearly defined for research, where it's the ideas, not the specific document used to convey those ideas that matter.

So, for instance -- if I write a paper on using (MethodX) to solve (ProblemY1), and someone realizes that (MethodX) might also be able to solve (ProblemY2), are they allowed to do it, or using it in new ways a derivitive? What if they wrote a paper about their findings, is that a derivitive? How about if I realize that there's a larger (ProblemY), is that a derivitive? Or if I realized that I could improve on (MethodX), is that a derivitive? Or even if you just have another occurance of (ProblemY1), are you allowed to use this knowledge of (MethodX) to apply it to the problem, or is any application of the research considered a derivitive?

The other one that people suggest for papers is CC-BY-NC, thinking that it'd prevent someone from using the ideas in the paper from trying to create a business around the idea ... but does this also mean that you're not allowed to publish new research that builds in a CC-BY-NC paper in a for-profit journal? Or attempt to get grants to extend the work?

The CC licenses (other than CC0) just don't work for research articles. I'm not even sure if CC-BY really works. (it's one thing to cite a paper ... but does it chain? Do we have issues with publishers who limit number of items in a reference list?) How do you give attribution when it actually gets used? (Do you acknowledge the authors when you install a road using asphalt they developed, or during the grand opening, or every time someone drives on it?)

Yes, this all may seem pedantic, but the CC licenses were developed for a specific purpose, and it was *not* research. I was at a meeting a couple of years back (not sure if it was BRDI or DataCite, as they were back-to-back), where John Wilbanks (at the time with Science Commons) was recommending CC0 for research data, in part because of these problems.

(In the case of data, the discussion typically comes up as either 'Data Use' vs. 'Data Re-Use' or as 'Data Repurposing', or the greater concept of 'Data Policies')

Until we get these cleared up, CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-SA should *NOT* be used for publishing research.

Please do not *ever* recommend ND for anything of this nature again.

Think about it -- research builds upon other research. That's the whole point of publishing research.

We *want* people to build on the work. ND *specifically* tells people 'you're not allowed to do *anything* with my research'. SA's another messy one, as it sets a restriction on derivatives.

The best thing authors should do is to make sure that they don't lose their rights to the document, so that they can re-distribute the paper, no matter what stupidity the journal publishers do. And for that, see Creative Common's Scholar's Copyright Project:
        http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/

Perhaps you misunderstand me; "factual" and "creative" are not mutually exclusive; and I'm not trying to make any aesthetic judgment. What I have in mind is this:

As a general rule, copyright is said to protect "expressive, creative works" that are fixed in a tangible medium. The requirement that a work be expressive and/or creative to attract copyright protection means that it has to be the product of someone's effort and ingenuity. Mere facts and ideas are not protectable.

My point is, copyright law is a tool designed for a different purpose. It isn't going to protect privacy well, because that wasn't what it was crafted to do. You have a good suggestion, though:

How about prosecution of the former associate under computer fraud and abuse act, for gaining access without authorization, . . .

That sounds like a great idea. However, as discussed elsewhere, that probably won't suffice to get the illegally obtained evidence thrown out. That's why I think we probably need better privacy laws.

Superwiz is most definitely correct to point out there is gold in them thar data.

However, it's not strictly true that either Open Access to journal articles "misses the real problem", nor is it true NIH and other organizations are not moving on this issue of Open Access to data.

1) The NIH has a Data Sharing and Access Policy which strives to get such data out there where all can reap the full benefits of mining it.

          http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm

2) NIH is also committed to funding both repositories and application of algorithmic tools for mining such data (e.g., all of the resources hosted by NCBI such as the Entrez data sets and tools). For some of the more complex data types that are being generated, NIH is funding grants and contracts to help make this data more available.

3) The Science Commons (associated with the Creative Commons) has as one of its primary objectives to create and persistently host a richly expressed repository of public research data (primary data and derived data) specifically to catalyze discovery by the broader community.

          http://sciencecommons.org/

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The recognition is there. Some significant technical obstacles still need to be addressed. But I do think the desire SuperWiz expresses here will gradually become a given over the next decade.

I would also add that prior to the 1990's, no research lab made much effort to get their data (raw & derived) out into the "commons". Most didn't think of it as valuable, and there is some truth to the thought that such a deluge would slow - as opposed to hasten scientific discovery.

I believe this view is changing, and we will see the expectation data needs to be published will be a given within a decade.

So, if Google takes the raw data and does that color assignment itself, well, the result is theirs.

If you're talking on the order of a 6 month embargo, I could see that. If you're talking two years, I'd have to say that's too long.

I may be biased on the matter, as one of my duties is to distribute some public research data. The data that we generate is released immediately, except for new missions, which have had embargos until they could finish testing the instruments. The data we get from other locations may be embargoed for a few months.

For those who are new to the topic, I'd suggest you take a look at the OpenScience Project, the Science Commons, the NSF's 2003 Cyberinfrastructure Report, the NSB's Government Funding of Scientific Research and the Astronomer's Data Manifesto for a bit of background (specifically, see Ray Norris's Can Astronomy Manage its Data?).