http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007_06_10_fosblogarchive.html#8108428104444347673

Comment:

Suber's defense of the removal of permission barriers seems a little bit hasty. There are more pros for derivative works.

To be able to make derivative works is essential for:

* Mirroring eprints (see also the LOCKS principle)

* Translating without creator's consent (see also the digital divide)

* Collaborative wiki-like working in the scholarly context.

Suber should also have noted that the BBB definitions clearly say that removing of permission barriers is a core aim of OA.

Harnad isn't the voice of OA. The relevant definitions are Budapest, Bethesda and Berlin.

Suber's comment on my comments:

I didn't even start to list the benefits of permitting derivative
works. So it's a little unfair to criticize me for omitting some. I
didn't want to debate the pros and cons of specific permission barriers. I
wanted to show that without a license you can't give your users more use
rights than "fair use" (or fair dealing) already provides.

In my post yesterday

I was explicit that the BBB definitions require the removal of permission
barriers. But (again) that wasn't the topic today. The topic was whether
removing price barriers already does the work of removing permission barriers.

I hope you can correct your post. Feel free to quote from this email if you like.

It would be useful to have a collection of arguments (and articles) pro removing permission barriers (Suber can quote if the topic arises again).

Here are the reasons for choosing CC-BY by PLoS:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020228