Re: NYTimes.com Article: Moore Foundation funds new journals

[Peter Suber <peters@earlham.edu>]

The NYTimes got this fact wrong.  The PLoS doesn't want authors to put 
their articles into the public domain.  It wants them to retain copyright 
but to permit anyone to copy or redistribute the work "subject to the 
condition that proper attribution be given whenever the work is reproduced 
or redistributed."  For more details, see the PLoS license, 
<http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/license.htm>.

----------
Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy
Email peters@earlham.edu
Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
Editor, FOS News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
___

At 09:43 PM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Quote from the NY TImes article
>
>"........with the goal of cornering the best scientific papers and
>immediately depositing them in the public domain."
>
>Am I right in thinking that "public domain" is different from free public
>access?  If something is in the public domain there is no copyright in it
>- in US law can that mean that someone can claim authorship of work that
>is not theirs?  In the academic world it matters that work is attributed
>to the right person, even if that person has publicly declared that anyone
>can read it without payment.
>
>Fytton Rowland