2 removed incorrect material
source | link

As FBolst and GEdgar have noted, this isn't about "feel free to republish my paper and feel free to change the contents at random". It's "feel free to publish work that builds on these".

For instance, say I publish a paper that proves a theoretical result about the properties of purple quarks. You notice that the same method can be modified to prove a result about red quarks. CC-BY means that you are free to publish a new paper that adapts my work to explore red quarks, as long as you credit my work and indicate whether any changes were made.

You might have the right to do so anyway, under "fair use" provisions, but a CC-BY license makes it unambiguous that you have the legal right to do so. If you are a nice researcher who doesn't want to step on other people's toes, it also gives social permission to do so.

My organisation uses CC-BY as its default license for published work. We're government rather than academia, but there are similarities between what we do and scientific research (we're in the business of collecting, processing, and publishing data) and some of the same considerations apply.

Part of the reason for using CC-BY is that we want people to use the stuff we publish. It's our reason for existence, and they've paid for this work through their taxes. (The USA goes further, and makes work done by government employees as part of their jobs copyright-free.)

Another reason is more pragmatic: it saves us a lot of time that would otherwise be spent responding to individual requests for permission. It's less trouble just to give a blanket "yes".

As FBolst and GEdgar have noted, this isn't about "feel free to republish my paper and feel free to change the contents at random". It's "feel free to publish work that builds on these".

For instance, say I publish a paper that proves a theoretical result about the properties of purple quarks. You notice that the same method can be modified to prove a result about red quarks. CC-BY means that you are free to publish a new paper that adapts my work to explore red quarks, as long as you credit my work and indicate whether any changes were made.

You might have the right to do so anyway, under "fair use" provisions, but a CC-BY license makes it unambiguous that you have the legal right to do so. If you are a nice researcher who doesn't want to step on other people's toes, it also gives social permission to do so.

My organisation uses CC-BY as its default license for published work. We're government rather than academia, but there are similarities between what we do and scientific research (we're in the business of collecting, processing, and publishing data) and some of the same considerations apply.

Part of the reason for using CC-BY is that we want people to use the stuff we publish. It's our reason for existence, and they've paid for this work through their taxes. (The USA goes further, and makes work done by government employees as part of their jobs copyright-free.)

Another reason is more pragmatic: it saves us a lot of time that would otherwise be spent responding to individual requests for permission. It's less trouble just to give a blanket "yes".

My organisation uses CC-BY as its default license for published work. We're government rather than academia, but there are similarities between what we do and scientific research (we're in the business of collecting, processing, and publishing data) and some of the same considerations apply.

Part of the reason for using CC-BY is that we want people to use the stuff we publish. It's our reason for existence, and they've paid for this work through their taxes. (The USA goes further, and makes work done by government employees as part of their jobs copyright-free.)

Another reason is more pragmatic: it saves us a lot of time that would otherwise be spent responding to individual requests for permission. It's less trouble just to give a blanket "yes".

1
source | link

As FBolst and GEdgar have noted, this isn't about "feel free to republish my paper and feel free to change the contents at random". It's "feel free to publish work that builds on these".

For instance, say I publish a paper that proves a theoretical result about the properties of purple quarks. You notice that the same method can be modified to prove a result about red quarks. CC-BY means that you are free to publish a new paper that adapts my work to explore red quarks, as long as you credit my work and indicate whether any changes were made.

You might have the right to do so anyway, under "fair use" provisions, but a CC-BY license makes it unambiguous that you have the legal right to do so. If you are a nice researcher who doesn't want to step on other people's toes, it also gives social permission to do so.

My organisation uses CC-BY as its default license for published work. We're government rather than academia, but there are similarities between what we do and scientific research (we're in the business of collecting, processing, and publishing data) and some of the same considerations apply.

Part of the reason for using CC-BY is that we want people to use the stuff we publish. It's our reason for existence, and they've paid for this work through their taxes. (The USA goes further, and makes work done by government employees as part of their jobs copyright-free.)

Another reason is more pragmatic: it saves us a lot of time that would otherwise be spent responding to individual requests for permission. It's less trouble just to give a blanket "yes".