That's correct, Ed. I compared our license with another institution's earlier today and was incorrect that ACM is not allowing authors to deposit their articles in the IR. While authors can give ACM the exclusive rights to publish the article, further down in the license it states that authors "shall retain the non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free right to use their Content for scholarly and educational purposes, including self-archiving or depositing the Published Version of Record (VoR) of the Content in institutional, subject-based, national or other repositories or archives (including the author’s own web pages or departmental servers), in non-commercial repositories and to comply with all grant or institutional requirements associated with the Content." This restriction then seems intended to restrict "open access" articles published by ACM from ending up on other commercial sites. I am deeply sorry for the confusion here.

I do still find it problematic that this option is offered to researchers whose institutions are paying for ACM Open and I feel that the copyright notice on these "open access" articles is misleading as it implies that permission is needed from ACM to distribute the article on the open web. CC licensing helps standardize and add clarity to license rights. When ACM, Elsevier, and other publishers create their own definitions of "open access," it only adds to the confusion of our users as they try to navigate this already complicated ecosystem.

########################################################################

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives:
https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
[log in to unmask]

########################################################################