Hot answers tagged

50

This seems to be a clear case of plagiarism, and potentially a copyright violation. The BSD license contains a line "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer". If that was included in your Original code, then it seems that this was breached by the article authors. But even ...


41

The main reason is inertia and lack of information, I think. Researchers are not really aware of the costs their institutions have to face to subscribe to journals. From their perspective, publishing and reading are mostly free. It is not always easy to tell whether you have access to a PDF file because of your university's subscriptions or because it is ...


34

CC-BY seems to be the industry standard license for open access papers, see Why CC-BY? for a discussion of the reasons. It's a well-known license, that allows various kinds of later use (including commercial), and hence it's a good choice for papers and (I think) theses as well. The BY part requires "appropriate attribution". For academic reuse you can ...


30

Before thinking of the citation of the software, think of the related situation for scientific articles. Have you have read an article with a comment "If you use the results of our research, it is mandatory to cite this paper"? Probably not, it is because it is the practice of working scientists to cite relevant material (Comment here: I do not claim that ...


27

Copyright only protects the expression of a work that is written down or otherwise placed in a "fixed medium." It does not apply to ideas or concepts. In the case of a published article where copyright is transferred to the publisher, that copyright only applies to the written content and images in the article. It doesn't apply to the concepts in it. If ...


22

This "legal loophole" is trivial for journals to close. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most journals hadn't, in effect, already pre-emptively closed it. Basically, any publishing agreement vetted by a halfway competent lawyer will already have a clause requiring the author to assert that they in fact do have the authority to grant the journal the ...


22

Here are some answers to your questions: Yes, MathSciNet is behind a paywall. Yes, we ask reviewers to give us copyright to their reviews. Yes, you can post your reviews elsewhere. In return, for each review, we put US$12 on account at the AMS (up from the US$8 it was a few years ago) for the reviewer to use to buy AMS books, to pay (part of) your AMS ...


17

According to the Guide to Mining CC-Licensed Material (mirror), the answer may depend on what you produce with the text/data mining. If you run some calculations and then write a paper describing what you learned, then that paper would not be a derivative work. If you produce a data set based on the mining, then that data set might be considered an ...


14

While CC licenses aren't really appropriate for code, and code licenses aren't really appropriate for text, there's no real downside to assigning both kinds to the same material. This is "dual-licensing" (reasonably common for software), and it allows the reuser to choose whether they wish to use and redistribute your material under license A or license B. ...


13

Including CC-licensed images as discrete elements in your work does not require the overall work to be CC-licensed. Reasoning 2 is correct here. (See a similar discussion on opendata.se) The BY-SA license works in terms of "collective works" and "derivative works": 1a. "Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or ...


13

No. ISBNs are assigned to published books (print or electronic), and ISSNs are assigned to published journals (or other serials, such as conference proceedings). arXiv is not publishing either of these and so will not issue such identifiers. This is effectively saying "if it's been published, it's not allowed, but informal circulation online or as a ...


13

A license requiring some form of citation is certainly possible, but there would be practical problems which, I believe, far outweigh the benefits. To get an idea of what such problems might be, consider the original BSD license with an "advertising clause", requiring "all advertising materials mentioning features or use of [the] software" to display an ...


12

This depends highly on your countries laws and regulations. For example: The German copyright laws has some limitations for the use of works in the area of teaching and research. With the CC licenses you risk less mistakes. But you have to take care of the correct distribution. name the author and source if the license contains BY. don't change the file ...


12

I copied 1 or 2 figures verbatim (with proper citation) from statistics books. You cannot release these figures under a CC license. Even if we assume that you have the right to use them in this case, for example under fair use, you don't have the right to authorize others to use them in potentially very different ways. However, you can easily get around ...


12

There are two separate questions tangled together here. The first is whether scientists will cite something that has not gone through a traditional peer review process, and the second is whether a copyleft / open source repository project is a good way to manage such a non-traditional publication. To the first, the answer is most certainly yes. Many non-...


12

Unless you use some third-party code that is copyleft-licensed and forces you to use the same license, as the author/copyright holder, you are entirely free to choose your own licensing terms. (There are some legal limits, but they are very broad. You can't ask for someone's firstborn.) You could make your own license that has as a condition of use of your ...


11

One important thing to bear in mind is that a policy like this is not a silver bullet. Simply solving the copyright question won't actually mean people then go on to make material available. The proposed approach would allow authors to distribute the "original" (ie preprint, postprint, author's version) - text, formatted as they wish, without page numbers, ...


11

No. Researchgate is a for-profit organization that makes money from ads and job adverts. See for instance http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/12/a-social-networking-site-is-not-an-open-access-repository/. Also, if you share your paper there, the Researchgate TOS state that you, not them, have to cover all the legal costs in case they get sued (...


10

The site http://choosealicense.com/ will probably be helpful to you. The front page of the site offers a simple choice in fairly plain language: I want it simple and permissive. The MIT License is a permissive license that is short and to the point. It lets people do anything they want with your code as long as they provide attribution back to you and ...


10

Creative Commons "NonCommercial" prohibits uses that are "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation." Under U.S. law, where exactly the boundary lies can only ultimately be determined by development of precedent in case law, since the U.S. has a common-law legal system. It is pretty clear, though, that this ...


10

How to add another Creative Commons license to an arXiv paper: We currently support three of the Creative Commons licenses. If you wish to use a different CC license, then select arXiv's non-exclusive license to distribute in the arXiv submission process and indicate the desired Creative Commons license in the actual article. From the arXiv webpage about ...


9

You can't rely on the options for Google Image search. Instead, you will have to do additional research for each of the images you find and intend to use. First, you need to find the original author/creator of that image. It may or may not be the same as the owner/creator of the web site where you find the image. (They may have copied the image from ...


9

There are precedents that suggest this may be unacceptable to the IEEE, although the only way to know for sure is to ask. They may be more sympathetic if they see it as an unfortunate mistake, rather than an attempt to undermine their copyright policies. On the other hand, they may still wish to avoid any precedents that could be used to undermine those ...


9

Because they don't care. The majority of their relevant readership has access to their work via institutional subscription and they value journal quality and prestige over the business model or copyright policy. Sometimes they upload preprints or send them to colleagues who ask politely. what do authors gain from agreeing to transfer exclusive rights to ...


9

This may vary by country, but in the US at least, the default terms (if no alternative is specified) are "all rights reserved", which means that you are not allowed to reproduce the work (the dataset), prepare derivative works from it, sell/rent/lease it, or publicly perform or display it. In particular, redistributing it to others is not allowed. In ...


9

Using a decompiler, you can work with the restored source code as good as if the authors had made the code available in the first place. Not even close. Try running the decompiler on a free software program (to avoid any ethical tangles) to see what it generates. The output of a decompiler, especially when run on an optimized binary, is horrendous. Is it ...


8

The vast majority of young mathematicians with substantial publishing activity do indeed grant the arxiv such a license. This was a slow cultural adaptation and took over a decade. Some other disciplines are the same (it's even more universal in physics), but others aren't as far along in this process. Finally, the big tabloids (Science, Nature, etc) have ...


8

Bottom right corner (maybe unobtrusive in gray, as not to interfere with the white background) seems right to me - you see this often in paper magazines, too. This way nobody can easily or accidentally strip the attribution. A [number] (even maybe just the slide number) and picture credits on the last slide would be the second-best choice. And it's nice (...


8

Copyright only applies to the way ideas or information are presented, not the information itself. That's why you were able to just cite other researchers in your thesis without asking them. Therefore, you don't need to use any special license to make the information in your thesis usable by others, for any purpose at all. The auxiliary files are more like ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible