The Developing Nations license is in conflict with the growing “Open Access Publishing” movement. While the license frees creative work in the developing nations, it does not free work in any way elsewhere. This means these licenses do not meet the minimum standards of the Open Access Movement. Because this movement is so important to the spread of science and knowledge, we no longer believe it correct to promote a stand alone version of this license.
This move is an interesting indication of the growing ability of open access to define the terms of the debate about open content.
This is great news. It is now significant when someone says that "[a work] is under a CC license".
ReplyDeleteYes, it certainly helps tighten the meaning somewhat - though probably not yet enough for RMS....
ReplyDeleteNot sure about that. It seems now that a CC work no matter the license means it can be shared (in whole) with anyone. If this actually the case I would imagine RMS would endorse the phrase "CC license". I'll ask him.
ReplyDeleteGreat - please let me know what he says.
ReplyDeleteHe says he "can now support CC". I posted here.
ReplyDelete