創用CC授權條款以事先授予許可權利的設計，方便了著作的利用與再次使用。然而這是套繁複的系統：有多樣的授權條件、格式、與版本，其中包括翻譯為多種語言、適用各特定法律體系的版本；在多國移植過程 (international porting process) 之後，各版本被宣告為彼此相容。必須評價的是：這些授權條款的所有移植版本是否涵蓋相同的客體、權利、與限制？還是語言上的小差異會影響所授予的權利，而對授權條款的使用者、或是對所授權作品在以後的使用增修上，會有法律安定性的問題？此外，對於法律不確定性與不相容性的其他可能來源，其實際或可能後果，也需要加以評估。例如，因著不同司法管轄區不同甚至不一致的法律體系，而有授權條款有效性與可執行性的議題；授權標章文字與授權條款文本差異的議題；以及與其它著佐權 (copyleft) 授權條款在相容性的議題等。本研究呈現不同版本的授權條款（第二章），評價它們的實際影響（第四章），最後並提出方案，以減低風險並增進相容性、一致性、清晰性、以及法律的安定性（第五章）。（筆者譯自 Melanie Dulong de Rosnay 原著中的英文摘要）

世界各國政府雖然在公部門資訊 (Public Sector Information, PSI) 的公開發佈和再次使用上作法各有不同，但似乎都體認到數位網路以及公部門資訊對經濟和社會的重要性。然而，儘管在公部門資訊上的巨大投資，以及可預期的更大效益，我們對於不同資訊政策在資訊社會以及知識經濟上的成本效益議題，知道的其實很少。

目前已有一些評價方法以及其所依據的標準，經由瞭解它們的強項和弱點，應該可以增強並應用這些工具，將政策合理化，並釐清網際網路在傳佈公部門資訊的角色。因此也更能在投資與管理公部門資訊這方面，增進效率與效用，提昇下游的經濟和社會成果。

此次研討會的討論集結為本書的用意，就在於回顧目前的評價方法，並增進我們對公部門資訊在效用上的現有以及該有的瞭解。（筆者譯自 Paul F. Uhlir 等人原著中的英文摘要）

在智慧財產的圈地浪潮下，創意共用（creative commons）被許多公共園地（public domain）的支持者認為是拯救與擴大公共園地的行動方案。一手促成創意共用的 Lawrence Lessig 更以為創意共用授權在技術上雖然沒有擴大公共園地，但這種展示分享的「實質公共園地」，將有助於自由文化的實現。儘管如此，不少論者指出以智慧財產為基礎，強調作者自由選擇的創意共用授權，反而是深化了財產權的意識，從而鞏固了 Lessig 所反對的允准文化。究竟，創意共用是對智慧財產的抵抗還是認同？是促長了自由文化，還是允准文化？就此問題的回答，本文嘗試以在文化研究與後殖民研究中，常見的「論述」（discourse）與「他者」（the other）的理論概念，透過批判性的歷史檢視，去看見創意共用它所抵抗與認同的對象 — 智慧財產論述。本文認為透過此種取徑，我們將可以更清楚地了解創意共用與智慧財產論述的關係，乃至其與過去抵抗策略的相同與差異，從而在歷史的縱深下，去思考可能的方向。

首先，本文會以英美的歷史發展為經，去探討智慧財產論述的形成過程以及其特色與作用。 本文認為自安妮法案，這個一般認為是第一個保障作者的著作權法開始，其所提示的其實是書商或者後來的資本家，如何透過環繞在「作者」形象上的論述，去正當化其就智慧財產的權利/力行使。這些論述往往是矛盾與斷裂的，但就其服務於資本家的利益而言，卻是必要的。 思想與表達的公共與私有的二元區分，也有同樣的功能。而作為智慧財產的他者，公共園地則被描繪為知識的荒原，從而證立了智慧財產的必要性。

在批判性地檢視西方智慧財產論述的發展與作用後，本文將討論戰後台灣註冊審查制度的發展。此一註冊審查制度在戒嚴時期的台灣，屬於輔助性的言論管制。而訴諸智慧財產論述中私有財產權利的講法，是註冊審查制度在1985年可以改為創作取得主義的主要推力之一。 但是，智慧財產論述的移植與深化，也使得公共園地成為權利的他者，成為一個因為沒有人「所有」，所以不能被確認之訴確認存在的「荒地」；而在美國八零年代堅持將進入公共園地的「十年舊片」，重新予以著作權保護的例子中，我們也可以發現錄影帶業者即使感覺到他們的「權利」被侵害了，但進入法律的語言，他們只能訴諸法安定性與國法尊嚴的民族情感，反而是圈地者可以主張個人權利的保障應從新從寬。

此外，從西書翻印與電腦軟體著作權保護的兩個案例切入，我會討論「抵抗中的認同」與「認同中的抵抗」兩種現象。在智慧財產與公共園地的文明/原始、進步/落後、開發/未開發、繁榮/荒涼、秩序/海盜二元對應的演化關係中，公共園地被看做落後、野蠻與原始的他者，而智慧財產則是先進、法治與現代的理想的我。戰後台灣的一些「抵抗」論述，其成立前提反而是「認同」此一二元對應關係 — 主張台灣還屬「落後」國家，因此「先進」國家如美國的法律，尚不適合台灣「國情」。另一方面，因為智慧財產論述的內部存在著許多潛藏的矛盾與緊張。因此，在逐漸熟悉西方智慧財產理論的台灣，也開始有論者，在「認同」智慧財產論述內的法理前提下，「抵抗」美國等西方中心國家所排定的議程。

發源於美國的創意共用授權，與智慧財產論述之間，同樣也有複雜的認同與抵抗關係。本文認為就中介人與作者的利益矛盾而言，創意共用採取的即是在「認同」作者權利下，予以拆解的「抵抗」策略；但是，此種「認同中的抵抗」，因為創意共用未從內部重新想像智慧財產，反而是複製的智慧財產論述的話語，因此很容易變質為「抵抗中的認同」，特別是在缺乏由下而上的運動力量的台灣，更係如此。因此，本文嘗試從「文化景觀裡互相依賴的參與式作者」（inter-dependent participative authorship in cultural landscape）的理念出發，提出「文化共用財產」（cultural common property）的概念，重新省思創意共用與資訊環保運動的定位與未來。（黃泰然）

在知識經濟的時代，知識密集的研究活動扮演著日益重要的角色，各國政府除了重視基礎科學水準的提升，也希望研究成果有效流通，以激發創新與加值，更提昇國際社會整體的科技發展與進步。學術資訊與知識的自由流通，以及學術文獻無障礙地交流，一直是追求卓越學術研究者的理想。從十七世紀紙本學術期刊的初步形成、學術社群的信件來往，到二十一世紀電子化學術期刊成為常態的出版方式以及數位圖書館的進步，學術溝通的媒介和形式不斷地演進，政府學術相關的決策者不能不正視這個種變化，加以瞭解、輔助和引導，特別是在創新密集的時代，學術溝通更須加速，研究成果必需更加直接地和無時差地在整體社會中交流。

「開放近用 (open access)」是近年來逐漸為各國政府所重視的一種學術溝通的創新模式，試圖在資訊化社會的數位環境中，提供給學術界和整體社會免費的、直接的和更加即時的學術文獻和資訊。美國的「學術出版與研究聯盟(SPARC)」並於2008年結合其它的學術圖書館組織，明訂每年的10月中旬的一個星期為「開放近用週」，台灣亦當無自外於國際學術發展潮流。過去，國內學界雖曾舉辦過開放近用研討會，學者亦曾發表過開放近用的論述於各期刊，但尚無專書出版。本書為國內中文書籍中，首次以探討開放近用為主題的專書，內容廣泛並完整，除了傳統圖書館界所推動著重於學術論文的開放近用，還引進了較新興的開放資料 (open data) 觀念，並介紹了開放近用的技術基礎，有助於國人瞭解開放近用運動的發展和機會，並接軌國際思潮。此外，本書亦為科技政策研究與資訊中心的出版品中，首次採用創用CC授權的出版刊物，為開放近用的創新模式做了一種示範。（財團法人國家實驗研究院 科技政策研究與資訊中心 林博文主任序）

Creative Commons licenses have been designed to facilitate the use and reuse of creative works by granting some permissions in advance. However, the system is complex with a multiplicity of licenses options, formats and versions available, including translations into different languages and adaptation to specific legislations towards versions which are declared compatible among each other after an international porting process. It should be assessed whether all ported licenses cover exactly the same subject matter, rights and restrictions or whether small language differences may have an impact on the rights actually granted and legal security of current users or the availability of works for future generations to access and build upon. Besides, other possible sources of legal uncertainty and incompatibility, as well as their actual or potential consequences, need to be evaluated, such as the validity and enforceability of the licenses across jurisdictions with different and possibly inconsistent legislations, the variations between the licenses summary and the licenses text written in legal language, the interoperability with other copyleft licenses. This study presents the different licenses (chapter 2), identifies various possible sources of legal incompatibility (chapter 3), evaluates their actual impact (chapter 4) and finally proposes options to mitigate risks and improve compatibility, consistency, clarity and legal security (chapter 5). (Melanie Dulong de Rosnay)

While governments throughout the world have different approaches to how they make their public sector information (PSI) available and the terms under which the information may be reused, there appears to be a broad recognition of the importance of digital networks and PSI to the economy and to society. However, despite the huge investments in PSI and the even larger estimated effects, surprisingly little is known about the costs and benefits of different information policies on the information society and the knowledge economy.

By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the current assessment methods and their underlying criteria, it should be possible to improve and apply such tools to help rationalize the policies and to clarify the role of the internet in disseminating PSI. This in turn can help promote the efficiency and effectiveness of PSI investments and management, and to improve their downstream economic and social results.

The workshop that is summarized in this volume was intended to review the state of the art in assessment methods and to improve the understanding of what is known and what needs to be known about the effects of PSI activities. (Paul F. Uhlir, rapporteur, et al.)

Facing the expansion of intellectual property in the late twentieth century, supporters of public domain often viewed creative commons licenses as a private action to resist the second enclosure and build their own public domain. Lawrence Lessig, founder of creative commons, defined creative commons as an "effective public domain" that aims to realize the vision of free culture. However, some scholars and activists have criticized the fuzziness of creative commons' ideology. From their point of view, creative commons is more like a copyright license than a public domain, a submission to property discourse than a subversive resistance. In this dissertation, I explored this issue through the concepts of "discourse" and "the other" borrowed from critical studies and post-colonial theory. Specifically, I analyzed the texts of "intellectual property discourse" in a critical historical approach. In this way, we might have more insight about the relationship between creative commons and intellectual property discourse.

By exploring the formation and development of intellectual property discourse in England and U.S.A., I pointed out its function in soothing the anxieties of intellectual property rights holders, who more likely be capitalists than creators, and its structural embedded contradiction. Specifically, although "original genius" as an idea image of authorship repeatedly emerges when it come to the justification of proprietor exclusive and despotic power over its private property, to be a proprietor of an "original" work only needs to be a copier with bad eyesight who is incapable of making a perfect copy. The dichotomy of "private" expression and "public" ideas also plays a same role in soothing the anxieties of intellectual property rights holders while continually expanding the scope of their rights. In addition, the other of intellectual property — public domain — becomes an synonym of knowledge wasteland and commons of tragedy in which everyone suffers. This provides a further justification for the institution of intellectual property.

Under the rule of Kuomintang government before it lifted its martial law, Taiwan's Copyright registration system, in which creators need to register its work to acquire copyright, had long be an content-based speech regulation. Although we may doubted its significance in regulating speech compared to publication law, it seems that to some degree government regarded speech with a copyright "license" as a symbol of lawful speech. Instead of arguing from the perspective of free speech, lawyers, scholars and "Copyright Owners Association of Republic of China" tended to invoke intellectual property discourse. They argued that owing to the fact that copyright is a natural right, the copyright registration system unduly limited property rights secured by Constitution. In 1985 Copyright Act, Taiwanese work no longer need to registered to acquired copyright. Although intellectual property discourse played an vital role in this legal reform, it also reinforced the status of public domain of being the other. Because no one has a exclusive right over public domain, the Taiwan High Court think it is unnecessary to confirm its legal status. Furthermore, when U.S.A. demanded Kuomintang government to let their public domain movies regain copyright protection by applying new copyright act's copyright duration, the activists who against this proposal couldn't appeal to rights discourse because they had "no rights" in public domain work.

In addition, from the two case studies, unauthorized books and computer programs in Taiwan, I argued there are two notable phenomenons when it comes to the resistance to of intellectual property discourse: submission in seemly resistance and resistance by acknowledging some elements of intellectual property discourse. In intellectual property discourse, the dichotomy between public domain and intellectual property also represents an evolution from barbarian to civilized, lawless to order, undeveloped to developed. In this vein, some "resistance" in Taiwan premised on this linear evolution theory, arguing the "modern" intellectual property law is too early for undeveloped and primitive Taiwan to adopt. On the other hand, owing to the fact that there are structural embedded contradiction in intellectual property discourse, we could see some lawyer and scholars who were familiar with intellectual property discourse, adopted a subversive strategy by acknowledging some elements of intellectual property discourse.

We could also see this complex submission and resistance relationship between creative commons and intellectual property discourse. By acknowledging the primacy of "author," creative commons regarded itself as a tool to replace the intermediaries. However, there are some pitfalls in this strategy. Without re-imagine the idea of authorship, instead of voicing out dissents and alternatives, creative might replicate the intellectual property discourse, especially in Taiwan where creative commons is more like a promotion aided by government than a grassroots movement. Thus, in this dissertation, I propose an concept of "cultural common property" in the lens of "inter-dependent participative authorship in cultural landscape" to rethink the future of creative commons and information environment movement. (Tai-Jan Huang)

Open Access is a new model in scholarly communication that has increasingly caught the attention of governments in many countries. It is an attempt to provide to the academics and the society with free, direct, and more timely academic papers and information. In the US, since 2008 SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) together with other academic and research libraries have designated one week in October as the Open Access Week. In Taiwan we could not possibly be outside of this international trend. Although there have been several workshops on Open Access in Taiwan, and scholars have been publishing papers in related areas, however, there is yet to have a monograph on this subject. This report is the first among the publications in Chinese in our country that investigates the theme of Open Access. Its coverage is broad and comprehensive. In addition to addressing issues on open access to academic research papers which traditionally have been emphasized by the librarian community, this report also writes about a newer concept — Open Data. It also introduces the technical infrastructure of Open Access which shall be useful for our understanding about the development and opportunity of the Open Access movement. This report is also the first among the publications of the Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center (STPI), National Applied Research Laboratories (NARL), to be released under a Creative Commons License. As such, itself is a demonstration of the Open Access innovation. (This is an abridged translation of the Chinese preface by Bou-Wen Lin, the director of STPI, NARL, for the report.)