http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/11/oa-and-derivative-works-continued.html

Peter Suber has answered to our disagreement on his position on derivative works. I appreciate the clarification.

Suber writes:

"Hence, I should say for completeness that a license which does prohibit all derivative works would not be OA within the BOAI definition. I regret leaving the impression that prohibiting all derivative works would be OA."

The implication seems clear to me: Content licensed under CC-BY-ND (which prohibits all derivative works without consent) is'nt within the BBB definitions and thus not OA.

I respect that scholars wish respect for their moral rights but I do not think that a legal license formula can solve this problem.

There was a long discussion on Wikimedia Commons on the "moral rights" clausula in the CC 3.0 deed:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Creative_Commons_3.0

I agree with the position at
http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2007/11/07/cc-oa-moral-rights/

(To be continued.)