5 ms·

This book is distributed under a non commercial license (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0) [0]. While I understand that language is evolving and that only under a "strict defin

This book is distributed under a non commercial license (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0) [0]. While I understand that language is evolving and that only under a "strict definition" of open access does it mean removing barriers to copying and reuse [1], it's seems pretty duplicitous to say it's "open" while putting it under a non-commercial license. [0] https://github.com/rougier/scientific-visualization-book/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/rougier/scientific-visualization-book/blo... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_access&oldid=1053544406 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_access&oldid...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
marmaduke 5y ago
Maybe you could explain why a non commercial license would not be open, for anyone not looking to turn a profit off of the author’s work?
jjnoakes 5y ago
To expand upon this a little, it's worth noting that the book and the code are licensed separately and differently.
- rougier 5y ago
  Yes, code is BSD licensed.
mindcrime 5y ago
it's seems pretty duplicitous to say it's "open" while putting it under a non-commercial license. I can't really agree with that. For open source, yes, the OSD does make it clear that the definition does not permit licenses that prevent commercial resale. But "open access" for scientific works, or just technical documentation in general, does not seem - in vernacular use - to entail such a strict requirement. Of course as an advocate of "free culture" in the most general sense, I might say I would prefer a book, paper, article, etc. to be published under something less restrictive. But I see nothing "duplicitious"[1] about this particular usage. Consider that the corresponding Wikipedia entry on Open Access[2] contains this blurb, which supports the idea that both "gratis open access" and "libre open access" would be considered sub-types of the more general idea of "open access." Similar to the free content definition, the terms 'gratis' and 'libre' were used in the BOAI definition to distinguish between free to read versus free to reuse.[38] Gratis open access (Free to read) refers to online access free of charge, and libre open access (open access) refers to online access free of charge plus some additional re-use rights [1]: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/duplicitous https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/duplicitous [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
rougier 5y ago
The NC part was mostly to avoid having someone to sell the book on some platform without my knowledge.
- abetusk 5y ago
  I'm not addressing the issue of whether you receive compensation for your work or your desire to have control over who copies it. I'm pointing out that you've stated it's "open access" without making it open access, at least for a strict interpretation of open access.
  - fault1 5y ago
    this is not the (common) interpretation of open access, which usually means, "no paywall".
poulpy123 5y ago
I can freely read, share and modify the book. The only restrictions is that I can't sell it. It's pretty open in my eyes ,even if it doesn't comply strictly to the definition of this or this organisation. on the same topic, I've seen people say that GPL isn't free for example.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

marmaduke 5y ago

Maybe you could explain why a non commercial license would not be open, for anyone not looking to turn a profit off of the author’s work?

jjnoakes 5y ago

To expand upon this a little, it's worth noting that the book and the code are licensed separately and differently.

rougier 5y ago
Yes, code is BSD licensed.

mindcrime 5y ago

it's seems pretty duplicitous to say it's "open" while putting it under a non-commercial license. I can't really agree with that. For open source, yes, the OSD does make it clear that the definition does not permit licenses that prevent commercial resale. But "open access" for scientific works, or just technical documentation in general, does not seem - in vernacular use - to entail such a strict requirement. Of course as an advocate of "free culture" in the most general sense, I might say I would prefer a book, paper, article, etc. to be published under something less restrictive. But I see nothing "duplicitious"[1] about this particular usage. Consider that the corresponding Wikipedia entry on Open Access[2] contains this blurb, which supports the idea that both "gratis open access" and "libre open access" would be considered sub-types of the more general idea of "open access." Similar to the free content definition, the terms 'gratis' and 'libre' were used in the BOAI definition to distinguish between free to read versus free to reuse.[38] Gratis open access (Free to read) refers to online access free of charge, and libre open access (open access) refers to online access free of charge plus some additional re-use rights [1]: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/duplicitous https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/duplicitous [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access

rougier 5y ago

The NC part was mostly to avoid having someone to sell the book on some platform without my knowledge.

abetusk 5y ago
I'm not addressing the issue of whether you receive compensation for your work or your desire to have control over who copies it. I'm pointing out that you've stated it's "open access" without making it open access, at least for a strict interpretation of open access.
- fault1 5y ago
  this is not the (common) interpretation of open access, which usually means, "no paywall".

poulpy123 5y ago

I can freely read, share and modify the book. The only restrictions is that I can't sell it. It's pretty open in my eyes ,even if it doesn't comply strictly to the definition of this or this organisation. on the same topic, I've seen people say that GPL isn't free for example.