http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/11/whether-or-not-to-allow-derivative.html

I disagree with Peter Suber and agree with PLoS and its position:

The Creative Commons web site explains the meaning of “no derivative works” as follows: “You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work”. This is not open access.

Its a clear misinterpretation of Budapest when Subers cites the definition as argument that derivative use isn't allowed:

The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

To control the integrity is a moral right and has nothing to do with a license formula. It's the same as the "responsible use of the published work" in the Berlin declaration which allows explicitely derivative works.

Harnad is denying the need of re-use. Suber has often argued for the reduction of PERMISSION BARRIERS and his personal position to prefer a CC-BY use is honest but his opinion that CC-ND is compatible with BBB and also OA is absolutely disappointing. And it's false too.

See also:
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=761