<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Nature Network - copyright</title>
    <description>The latest taggings for copyright</description>
    <link>http://network.nature.com/announcements</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>Blognapping</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Brian Clegg - Fellow Nature Network blogger "Richard Grant":http://network.nature.com/profile/rpg has recently had a unnerving experience. He has come across a website whose sole contents appear to be copies of "his blog":http://network.nature.com/blogs/user/rpg/2008/05/31/snarl entries without any attribution or links back to Richard's blog. It's pure]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Considering posting your paper in a repository? Think again</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Martin Fenner - Our "recent":http://network.nature.com/blogs/user/mfenner/2008/04/11/public-access-week-who-could-read-my-papers discussion on public access made me have a closer look on the options I have for my own papers. The results aren't pretty. *Most journals allow posting post-prints on a university website* The copright agreement with the journal]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Philip Ditchfield</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Philip Ditchfield - ]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Clarification of Creative Commons licenses</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Andrew Perry - It's great to see lots of publications in Precedings being released under a Creative Commons license, however I've noticed some inconsistencies which I think should be rectified. On the "Document information" pages, the license information states _"This publication is licensed]]>
      </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
