They facilitate and encourage open access and availability, but does not require it; that is an Open Access Option, not Policy. This is essentially an opt-out system (good!) but the opt-out waiver is very easy. We can all imagine certain publishers demanding proof of an opt-out waiver before accepting a paper. It's unclear to me how they deal with multiple authors differing on opinion, or from different institutions, but those are thorny issues.
Additionally, users can choose from any CreativeCommons license. I love CC, but CC-BY-NC-ND is VERY different from CC-BY. Both OA? Maybe, under a fairly narrow definition of access; PLOS defines open access as "unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse", so to them this isn't OA.
It is a fine policy and a net-positive, but it's not an Open Access policy.
CC-BY-NC-ND is just fine, and it seems entirely reasonable to call it “open access”. By far the most important thing the public can do with scientific papers is read them.
Obviously it can sometimes be nice to allow translations to other languages, interpretations in other media, bundling of collections of papers, reuse of the figures in other people’s works, copy/pasting the text into Wikipedia, or whatever.
But if folks need to get separate dispensation from the author/publisher for such additional uses, I have no problem with that.
I've no problem with BY, but NC and ND are quite restrictive. ND particularly as the license says I can't "build upon" the material. What does that mean in a scientific paper, I can't replicate your experiment? I can't create improvements to your algorithm and publish a new paper?
Code is a trickier issue, but generally no, you could not publish derivative code. Not that you generally can under traditional copyright.
>My publisher’s policy says _____________, which is different from UC’s OA policies.
>Publishers’ policies will not, by default, represent the terms of institutional open access policies. You should read, and keep, any agreement you sign. In particular, you may want to look out for rare contract terms asking you to affirm that you have obtained a waiver of any institutional open access policy, or that you have not previously licensed any rights in your article to anyone besides your publisher.
Under both agreements the author also has the right to publish, before peer review commences, a copy of the submitted version to non-peer servers, which would cover things like arXiv.org.