Since our coalition of over 50 signatories first released our letter to the STM Association calling on them to withdraw their new model licenses there has been overwhelming support. We’ve added new signatories daily to now reach 85. The most recent additions are publisher-oriented – GigaScience Journal and UC University Press – the latter notable as being a publisher with a strong history in the social sciences and humanities. See the letter itself for the full list of what is now a very wide ranging group of signatories
Many signatories have also blogged their own perspective. A full list of the posts and media coverage we know about is below but in this post I wanted to pick out one aspect that is particularly important. While PLOS (and many of those of us associated with it) are vociferous supporters of CC BY as the right license for scholarly work, many of the signatories to the letter choose to use other Creative Commons licenses, including some of the more restrictive variants. See for instance the ACRL Post on their use of CC BY-NC or the Wikimedia Foundation post that emphasises CC BY-SA.
This is important because it shows that even while we disagree on important issues of principle around which licenses to use, we all agree that we should work within a single framework. This means that we can have the important discussions on those principles and know that until we resolve them we are as compatible from a legal perspective as possible. And it means that if and when we do resolve those issues that it is possible to shift from one CC license to another with as few unexpected side effects as possible.
The thing that most disappointed me about the STM response to our letter is the way it mistakenly equates the use of Creative Commons licenses with the use of the CC BY license specifically. STM should be showing leadership through educating its members on the range of CC licenses.
What the growing list of signatories, coming from a wide range of perspectives and the coverage below shows is that there is plenty of space for a diversity of opinions on business models and user rights within a single interoperable framework of Creative Commons licenses.
Coverage by signatories, other bloggers and press
PLOS Opens Blog:
SAGE (Social Science Space blog): http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/08/do-scholarly-publishers-need-a-creative-un-commons/
Institutional and Library Groups
Max-Planck Digital Library: http://openaccess.mpg.de/2066551/Global_Coalition_calls_on_STM_publishers_to_withdraw_new_model_licences
Civil Society and Advocacy Organisations
Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/43450
Question Copyright: http://questioncopyright.org/letter_against_stm_license_proliferation
Martin Weller: http://blog.edtechie.net/battle/infrared-instead-of-sun/
Times Higher Education Supplement: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/publishers-copyright-move-could-limit-use-of-research/2015078