 |
 |
Stephen wrote: > CC-BY are NOT the "most open" licenses, they are merely the most > commerce-friendly. Licenses that allow prople to block access and > charge money for access to materials are less open, not more open. CC-BY is the most open *because*, unlike BY-NC-SA, it is not designed specifically for those who are ideologically opposed to profit. Yes, these licenses allow commercial entities (or anyone else) to charge access, but so what? That affects only their specific repository of those materials, not the materials themselves. *Any* repository is a good thing, whether it has a paywall, or only responds to requests from IP addresses in Saskatchewan, or is only online on Tuesdays, or whatever. It means that overall access to those materials is greater than it would be otherwise. And the license attached to those materials means there's nothing stopping anyone with access from copying them to a repository with whatever access rules are desirable. If the existence of repositories with paywalls somehow inhibited the ability of others to distribute those materials without cost, then your argument would have merit. But they don't, and it doesn't. -=Steve=- -- Stephen H. Foerster [log in to unmask] http://wikieducator.org/steve