Hi all,

A few thoughts on bill reports and Scott's question about CC licenses. I'm
speaking as an individual and not as my employer's government affairs
representative (though I wear that hat too).

Re: Bill reports

   - Report language does not carry the weight of law. Bill reports are
   add-ons to bills themselves; the reports are not mandatory (you can have a
   bill without a report) and not enforceable by law (the bill becomes
   law, not the report).
   - That said, when reports are provided their intent is to communicate
   congressional expectations about how agencies should use appropriated
   funds. And when a report exists, agencies typically abide by the report
   language, even though it's not legally binding to do so.

Re: CC options

   - Creative Commons is in the midst of a "strategy refresh" and holding
   community calls to solicit feedback. Much might change about the license
   options between now and ACM's 2026 pivot to full OA. I'd encourage all
   interested parties to contact CC about ways to share your thoughts.


Best,
- Tom

Tom Ciavarella
(d/b/a Smarter Learning LLC)
www.tomciav.com
www.linkedin.com/in/tomciav


On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:33 PM Scott Delman <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi all. This entire discussion is very timely. My organization, the
> Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) is planning to transition to 100%
> Open Access publication at the end of 2025. Currently, authors of papers
> that will be published on an Open Access basis have the option of selecting
> from a menu of Creative Commons licensing options or to select a “No CC”
> option. There’s been some discussion of this approach on this listserv in
> the recent past.
>
>
>
> One thing we are struggling with that would benefit from feedback on this
> thread is how to approach CC licensing options once we finalize the
> transition to 100% OA publication in 2026. Currently, there are several
> options that ACM is seriously considering, as follows:
>
>
>
> Option 1 – Simplify the CC options and only offer CC-BY-4.0 (the least
> restrictive option) and remove the “non-exclusive license to publish” and
> “No CC” options at the same time (which are currently options for authors
> to select). CC-Zero remains valid for data, code, and other research
> artifacts.
>
>
>
> Option 2 – Keep the multiple CC options (NC, ND, NC-ND, etc.) for authors
> to select at their discretion, remove the “non-exclusive license to
> publish” and “No-CC” options at the same time.
>
>
>
> I would very much welcome feedback and advice from the library community
> along with explanations of why one of the above approaches is better than
> the other for various stakeholders. If an Option 3 exists that is worth
> considering, I would welcome this as well.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for your feedback.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott Delman
> ACM Director of Publications
>
> Assoc. Computing Machinery
> 1601 Broadway, 10th Floor
> New York, New York 10019
> Office: +1-212-626-0659 <+12126260659>
> Mobile: +1-212-729-7515 <+12127297515>
> Fax: +1-212-869-0481 <+12128690481>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Skype: scott.delman
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottdelman
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0381-0696
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Rick
> Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *Monday, August 19, 2024 at 1:08 PM
> *To: *[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *Re: [OPENCAFE-L] Legislative opposition to the Nelson Memo
> continues to fail to die...
>
> I don’t think anyone is claiming that no lobbyists were involved. I’m sure
> the publishing lobby was pushing for these reports, just as I’m sure SPARC
> and its dark-money backers were pushing for the Nelson OSTP’s update of the
> Holdren Memo.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Rick Anderson
>
> University Librarian
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> (801) 422-4301
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *Monday, August 19, 2024 at 11:05 AM
> *To: *Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> *Cc: *James O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *Re: [OPENCAFE-L] Legislative opposition to the Nelson Memo
> continues to fail to die...
>
>
>
> So it's a small group of dedicated public servants, engaged in rational
> analysis and discourse with one another, and independently coming up with
> similar thoughtful and eirenic recommendations?  No politicians, no
> lobbyists, no vested interests, nobody whose ox might be gored, just pure
> and serene public policy?  An inspiring thought, but really?
>
>
>
> Jim O'Donnell
>
> ASU
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:05 AM Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> It’s the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, each of which has
> written a separate report expressing concern about implementation of the
> Nelson Memo.
>
>
>
> Relevant section of the House committee report:
> https://www.congress.gov/118/crpt/hrpt582/CRPT-118hrpt582.pdf#page=92
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.congress.gov/118/crpt/hrpt582/CRPT-118hrpt582.pdf*page=92__;Iw!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!ZoN63CRjz92lkgnOUKiAWi7EnEqCFAmBmDjJcD9u3naonBtkkW2WlPTJh2SS0hzwNV33-eX-0D6HE-s0eg_WgAGIzFLIB-g2Mg$>
>
>
>
> … and of the Senate committee report:
> https://www.congress.gov/118/crpt/srpt198/CRPT-118srpt198.pdf#page=149
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.congress.gov/118/crpt/srpt198/CRPT-118srpt198.pdf*page=149__;Iw!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!ZoN63CRjz92lkgnOUKiAWi7EnEqCFAmBmDjJcD9u3naonBtkkW2WlPTJh2SS0hzwNV33-eX-0D6HE-s0eg_WgAGIzFITSmaq_Q$>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Rick Anderson
>
> University Librarian
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> (801) 422-4301
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *Monday, August 19, 2024 at 10:00 AM
> *To: *Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> *Cc: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *Re: [OPENCAFE-L] Legislative opposition to the Nelson Memo
> continues to fail to die...
>
>
>
> Rick, where do you think this opposition is coming from?  “Appropriators”
> is a very anonymous screen behind which is … ?
>
>
>
> Jim O’Donnell
>
> ASU
>
> On Monday, August 19, 2024, Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/lawmakers-raise-new-licensing-concerns-over-white-house-open-access-mandate
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ww2.aip.org/fyi/lawmakers-raise-new-licensing-concerns-over-white-house-open-access-mandate__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!ZoN63CRjz92lkgnOUKiAWi7EnEqCFAmBmDjJcD9u3naonBtkkW2WlPTJh2SS0hzwNV33-eX-0D6HE-s0eg_WgAGIzFJ3Akw4aw$>
>
>
>
> Pull quote: “appropriators in both chambers of Congress have advanced
> legislation that would block federal agencies from limiting authors’
> ability to choose how to license their work.”
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Rick Anderson
>
> University Librarian
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> (801) 422-4301
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!ZoN63CRjz92lkgnOUKiAWi7EnEqCFAmBmDjJcD9u3naonBtkkW2WlPTJh2SS0hzwNV33-eX-0D6HE-s0eg_WgAGIzFLsx_7UjQ$>
>
> To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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]
>

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

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]

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