Based on your expertise and critical position, what do you expect this special issue to accomplish in relation to its Call for Papers on Publishing after Progress?

In such a special issue, I’d be very much interested in getting acquainted with theoretical and conceptual approaches that pave the way for thinking ‘beyond the modernist and capitalist ideas of humanity and scientific progress as the primary forces of change’; and, also, in getting to know specific practices and initiatives that enact this concern in the field of publishing.

How does this article/contribution relate to the topic, how does it contribute to the special issue’s scope?

Even though the piece ‘Prompts for decolonial and feminist practices of reuse’ does not directly deal with the topic of academic publishing or publishing at large, it challenges the limits and shortcomings of a license or legally-oriented conception of Free Culture and Open Access. In doing so, it puts into question two key ideas in the field of publishing and so many others of knowledge and cultural production –namely, authorship and the ‘complexity and porosity of knowledge practices and their circulation’. In that sense alone, the piece is a relevant contribution to CM’s special issue on Publishing after Progress, since both ideas and practices are at the core of any publishing endeavor. As the Call for Papers states –‘[…] to think beyond human and technological ‘progress’ and copyright issues, and to focus for once on moral, political and social rights as well as concrete strategies, practices, and methods for academic-led publishing’. The piece significantly addresses this concern.

What could be done to amend, develop, and expand the argument made in this article in relation to the topic, according to your stated expectations of what the issue should accomplish?

Along the lines that energise the CC4r initiative, this piece reviews and challenges licenses that foster OA but still uphold ideas of ‘authorship as ownership’ and assume ‘universalist approach to openness’. Against these assumptions, this piece understands authorship to always be part of ‘a collective cultural effort’ and, at the same time, stresses ‘the social and historical conditions that may be reasons for refraining from release and re-use of a work’. Finally, the piece states why it advocates a movement from the language of licensing to that of an ‘invitation or prompt’. As it has been pointed out elsewhere: ‘what is important is that CC4r doesn’t contractually impose but instead demands responsibility and liability; it’s a commitment’
[https://constantvzw.org/wefts/cc4r.en.html]. As a whole, the text does this concisely and convincingly.

However, the text may benefit if it further develops some points.

On the on hand, the piece repeatedly refers to ‘decolonial and feminist politics’ as well as to –as in the title– ‘decolonial and feminist practices of reuse’. However, it does not provide specific references or definitions so that readers understand what the precise meaning these politics and practices have. And what the relevance for the piece argument is. In doing so, the piece would benefit since it would be clearer where it stands in such intense debates – what sort of feminist politics? Indigenous? Decolonial criollo feminism? White liberal feminism? Radical black feminism? None of them? The same goes for ‘decolonial’ politics and practices.

On the other hand, there is a key argument behind CC4R’s ethos, namely ‘that authorship is understood as to be ‘always already situated within the communities with which we exist’ (Mugrefya & Snelting, 2022)’. (1) The reader would appreciate if this ‘relational’ and communitarian conception of authorship is expanded. Why is it important to redefine authorship for upholding the turn from licensing to ‘invitation and prompt’?

It’d also be important to delve into the complexities at stake in the conditional turn or ‘conditional licensing’. If, as the piece states, ‘[w]hat is remarkable, is that most of the licences we came across stipulate these conditions as exclusions, restrictions, or constraints. Rather than building an inclusive environment they single out those who are not allowed to participate in a specific reuse or cultural exchange’ (7). How could a ‘more inclusive environment’ be enacted? Or, put it otherwise, how to balance openness and protection?

Finally, the closing section 4 is a bit too short and abrupt. It’d be helpful to provide some more details regarding what CC4R is and the motivations behind it and, also, summarise what exactly differentiates it from the initiatives introduced in previous sections –namely, Decolonial Media Licence 0.1, OCSDNet, FAIR, CARE, etc.

It’d also be significant to further stress in section 4 why the invitation or prompt turn is preferable to the license or legal stance. In other words, and to sum up, why is it more significant for the Free Culture and OA debate and strategies now to rely on responsibility rather than liability?