I've recently submitted a paper to Proceedings of American Mathematical Society (PAMS) and it is being handled by an editor. I also want to have it on arXiv.

PAMS allows this if you put it on arXiv with a licence no less restrictive than CC-BY-NC-ND (see for example item 4a here), but arXiv offers less restrictive licences (at least in my understanding). The options are:

  • arXiv.org perpetual, non-exclusive license to distribute this article
  • Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY 4.0)
  • Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA 4.0)
  • Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
  • Creative Commons Public Domain Declaration (CC0 1.0)

Which of the licenses above is compatible with PAMS policy?


  • 3
    Since this question requires expertise in licenses, not academia, it may be better suited on Open Source (which, despite its name, is not only about source code licenses.) But don't cross-post; if you decide your question fits better over there, either delete this copy, or flag for a moderator to migrate it for you.
    – ff524
    Commented May 20, 2016 at 23:46
  • (For what it's worth, from my understanding, only the "arXiv.org perpetual, non-exclusive license to distribute this article" is allowed per item 4a in the document you linked. All of the others allow derivative works.)
    – ff524
    Commented May 20, 2016 at 23:51
  • 1
    When you say you want to have it on arXiv, do you mean that you would like to post the final version including the AMS's copy-editing? Or just the final accepted version, which would usually include some changes resulting from the referee's report? Or just the submitted version, for people to look at?
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented May 21, 2016 at 1:29
  • 2
    @ff524 I think there may be sufficiently many mathematicians on this site who have experience relevant to this question, for it to be more on-topic here than on opensource.stackexchange.com The question does concern a maths journal and a maths/physics repository, after all. (Disclaimer: IANAL)
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented May 21, 2016 at 1:30

1 Answer 1


Only the first option (the default) is no less restrictive than CC BY-NC-ND. You can always choose it, but you cannot choose the others unless you get special permission from the AMS. I have no idea whether they would grant such permission, but it can't hurt to ask if you care.

However, it doesn't matter which licenses are listed as options, since you are by no means limited to these choices. This list just consists of options the arXiv offers you with one click, but you can add a footnote to your paper specifying whichever license you like. In particular, if you want to use a CC BY-NC-ND license, then you can do so despite the fact that the arXiv's list doesn't include it. (You also have to choose one of their options, presumably the default, but that's not a problem. If a paper is available under two licenses, then users can choose to use either license to justify their use of it.)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .