I’m not 100% sure I’m interpreting you correctly – I’m a bit uncertain about the antecedent to “it” in your second sentence. Just so I’m clear: are you referring to the issue of researchers becoming more aware of issues about licenses?

I guess in a weak sense I agree that this will become so, as a result of OA mandates and so forth. But very few researchers have any sort of deep interest in licenses, and I think quite rightly: it’s not their job to be concerned with such matters, nor should it be.

As I said earlier, making licenses more of an issue than the absolute minimum necessary strikes me as a path to trouble, with the same disastrous license proliferation we’ve seen with open source software, as well as many researchers starting to use copyright as an additional way of enclosing their work.

Also, what do you think of projects such as WorldWideScience.org and firms such as Deep Web Technologies?

For instance, I am very interested in the subject of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and also saw a job open at Oregon State University for a digital librarian, so decided to explore its institutional repository here:

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/dspace/index.jsp

and found this very interesting dissertation on ALS:

The detection of superoxide and implications for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/dspace/handle/1957/5003

Now, that is the kind of thing that most search engines would miss and why I am so interested in this subject:

http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/sophisticated_yet_simple_the_technology

Sophisticated Yet Simple – The Technology Behind OSTI’s E-print Network

And the fact that search engines like Mednar and its creator Deep Web Technologies are helping to render more of the Deep Web searchable.

I’d be most interested to hear your thoughts on the role of search and the file format problem in open science.

I was a bit confused by Michael’s comment here, “One thing I wonder about, though, is the rather arbitrary distinction between peer-reviewed research and gray literature. For example, should Scott Aaronson’s recent post (http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=381) about a purported proof of an important conjecture in computer science be included in ResearchBlogging? The work it describes hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, yet I think Scott’s post is far more interesting and scientifically weighty than most posts about peer reviewed research. Much the same is true of many of the most interesting blog posts in physics, mathematics and computer science.”

To wit, I would not classify blog postings as, “gray literature.” I would go with the definition of great literature I just found in a quick Google search, “…research papers, statistical documents, and other difficult-to-access materials that are not controlled by commercial publishers.” I would not put blog postings under that rubric.

That brings up the question of how, then, to categorize blog postings. As you say, there is much of genuine scientific value in blog postings that have not yet (and may never be) peered reviewed. Are you saying that the gatekeepers of ResearchBlogging are too rigid in that respect? Should there be some sort of ranking system within it? Or would that confuse matters and undermine the raison d’entre of the ResearchBlogging enterprise? Maybe there should be a entirely new, scientist-controlled service (as opposed to mainstream media wire services) for breaking news in the sciences that would indicate that items are potentially significant but not yet reviewed? I would think such a service would be as valuable as ResearchBlogging is proving to be. Thoughts?

Gavin’s comments on OCLC are especially interesting in the light of the backlash by libraries against OCLC’s recent foiled (for now) power grab and its subsequent climb-down. We shall see how that all plays out.

(a) It’s inevitable that researchers will become more aware of copyright and related regulatory issues as they move more into this space, simply by virtue of needing to understand a new space. The only hope is to establish norms so clearly and forcefully that nobody has to think very hard about it. There is a paradox here, because in trying to do so, you bring more people to think about it. I think this can be generalized to any kind of norm-setting, in any context. (Stop me if this doesn’t make sense.)

(b) It happens anyway, exactly as you point out.

I hasten to add that it happens even without copyright. In the U.S., at least, if you post a dataset, and someone else derives information from this, I don’t see any copyright issue (or any database right issue, since that regime doesn’t exist here). The only way to, say, try to compel attribution is via contract — by getting your users to agree to whatever terms you set as a condition of viewing your data. This is exactly what the OCLC is trying to do with its WorldCat data, since (given Feist v. Rural) there’s no meaningful copyright hook here.

(c) Having watched this issue with CC licenses in applications outside science, it doesn’t seem like it happens that frequently. That’s not to say it never happens: just the other day, I commented on a group’s idea to encourage CC licensing in a context where fair use was perfectly sufficient. There’s a similar issue here: because boundaries are fuzzy, and nobody wants to end up in court, there can be a temptation to wear kid gloves and do less than we’re legally allowed, just to be extra sure. But if nobody stands up for all of what they’re allowed — even pushes the boundaries sometimes — then we allow the encroachment of property rights on what is and should be a commons, to the detriment of all. So the drift toward private ordering can be harmful when it moves the discussion from one of rights to be demanded to one of points of negotiation.

The good news is, it really doesn’t seem to happen that frequently. And as (a) and (b) should suggest, I feel a bit fatalistic that it does and will happen almost no matter what. By focusing on openness, and offering licensing as a solution anyone can get behind, at least we have something to fight back with.

None of this is disagree with your original point that the issue of data sharing is more one of the lack of incentives to share than one of disincentives (legal barriers). There has to be more impetus from funders, institutions, societies, journals and publishers, libraries, and researchers and the public generally. There are various levers to pull here, and it’d be interesting and value to take a birds-eye view of which are most effective.