deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index d6c31bc..17b0122 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
The \textit{“iron law of default inertia”} \cite{giglia2011diritto} has a power which should not be underestimated \cite{shieber2013good}. It is for that reason that policies implementing an Open-Access-by-default regime are strongly recommended (\cite{shieber2013good}; \cite{swan2015sept}; \cite{frankelopening}; EU Guidelines on OA, p. 4).  Please note, as a preliminary remark, that for an Open-Access-by-default scheme to be fruitful, a particular regime is required also for what concerns the deposit which precedes the Open Access: it should in fact be mandatory and non-waivable. However, as we are going to deal with deposit \textit{infra} (§ …), we do not deepen that theme by now.  OA policies implementing Open-Access-by-default show to be effective even when accompanied by an opt-out option: \textit{“[T]he experience at every school with a waiver option is that the waiver rate is low. At both Harvard and MIT it’s below 5 percent”}, state Shieber and Suber \cite{shieber2013good}. Even the recommendations formulated for the ten years from the Budapest Open Access Initiative – whose motto, by the way, significantly was \textit{“setting the default to open”} (10BOAI) \cite{budapest2012ten}  – left to policy-makers the choice between granting or not an OA waiver to faculty (10BOAI, Recommendation 1.1: (Recommendation 1.1 \cite{budapest2012ten}:  “\textit{[...] When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses. [...] Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (}with or without the option for faculty to waive \textit{this grant of rights for any given publication)”} (emphasis added).), as if it did not weigh on the goals of the Initiative. Again, a recent research enumerated the elements of Open Access policies mainly correlated with policy effectiveness \cite{swan2015sept}: “Open Access cannot be waived” was not present. On the other hand, the European Commission – in drawing up the OA regime to be adopted in Horizon2020 – has shown to be not so favourable to according an OA waiver: the Guidelines (H2020 Guidelines) do not mention it; the General Model Grant Agreement (H2020 GMGA) seems to be a little more supporting, but only through really specific exceptions not related to an author's indepenent decision – \textit{“the obligation to protect results in Article 27, the confidentiality obligations in Article 36, the security obligations in Article 37 or the obligations to protect personal data in Article 39”} (GMGA, art 29.1) –, and through very generic statements about author's will, like \textit{“}Unless it goes against their legitimate interests\textit{, each beneficiary must — as soon as possible — ‘disseminate’ its results by disclosing them to the public”} (GMGA, art 29.1 (emphasis added)).   Anyway, note that the negative correlation between “Open Access cannot be waived” element and deposit rate has been stated (Report on policy.recording, p. 9). In fact, omitting a waiver option – making by consequence an author unable to publish with the journals of her choice \cite{shieber2013good} when they implement publishing rules inconsistent with the OA policy applied by the university – may push faculty to avoid deposit: \textit{“If authors have to worry about rights when making the decision whether to deposit in the first place, the cognitive load may well lead them to just not deposit”} (THE IMPORTANCE OF DARK DEPOSIT). As OA policy provisions requiring deposit – though strongly recommended for their effectiveness in promoting OA (\textit{infra}, §) – are not easy to materially enforce with regard to restive faculty (\textit{infra}, §), clauses discouraging deposit should be avoided.  Open-Access-by-default can therefore be partitioned in waivable OA and mandatory OA. Pay attention: sometimes a policy is described as “mandatory” or as a “mandate” even when it envisage an opt-out option. It may happen for two main reasons: i. the “mandatory” character actually refers to deposit, not to OA making (cf., e.g., SWAN); ii. as OA is set as the default, it is “mandatory” until the single faculty engage in active conduct to obtain waiver for a specific contribution (cf. PRIEST, p. 397). 
...
Here, again, the position adopted by the European Commission in its Guidelines on OA (H2020 Guidelines) is not clear. In fact, even if they state that \textit{“}after depositing publications \textit{[…], beneficiaries must ensure open access”} (Guidelines, p. 6, emphasis added), those \textit{“beneficiaries”} are usually the institutions – not the single authors –; that means that an institution could have already acquired from the faculty – even \textit{ex ante}, once and for all, with a general OA policy – those rights needed in order to ensure OA, and then use those rights only after the deposit of publications. We can hence hazard to state that the European Commission is indifferent to the adoption of either of the “rights holding” alternatives.  As we already mentioned, mandatory non-waivable deposit is a feature required for OA-by-default policies in order to be truly effective; but the very same deposit mandate – even if not accompanied by an OA mandate (waivable or not) – has \textit{per se} the power of fostering Open Access (\textit{infra}, §): it is not for nothing that Suber and Shieber recommend this path in those cases where policy granting non-exclusive rights to institution is an unattainable solution \cite{shieber2013good}.  From its point of view, the already mentioned Recommendation 1.1 promotes – as an alternative to non-exclusive license directly conferred by OA policy – an OA policy \textit{“requir[ing] dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained”} (BOAI10). \cite{budapest2012ten}.  Even if the two above-mentioned authors imply that the obtaining of OA permission should be attributed to the institution – \textit{“the deposit will be “dark” (non-OA) until the institution can obtain permission to make it OA”} \cite{shieber2013good} – the plain text of the Recommendation is not so univocal: it might rather refer to the author and to permission accorded to her by the publisher, also given that it is preceded by: \textit{“When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend [...]”}. It is therefore unclear whether the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” is recommending policies imposing OA each time faculty own the rights needed in order to do so, or whether it is allowing policies requiring deposit but simply encouraging OA. Anyhow, it can be affirmed that mandatory-deposit policies are considered an option almost as good as Open-Access-by-default ones.  Concluded this deepened foreword about what practices are generally mainly recommended in OA policies' world, let's now examine the Italian situation. 
...
It is not for nothing that such a deposit regime is the one generally recommended to policy-makers by the most relevant sources.  For the Berlin Declaration, deposit is one of the two conditions a contribution must respect in order to satisfy Open Access: \textit{“Open Access contributions must satisfy two conditions: […] 2. A complete version of the work […] is deposited […] in at least one online repository”} (Berlin Declaration).  The “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” states: \textit{“All university and funder OA policies should require deposit in a suitable OA repository between the date of acceptance and the date of publication”} (10BOAI, Recommendation 1. On policy, 1.4). (Recommendation 1.4 \cite{budapest2012ten}).  The European Commission, in its "Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information" (2012/417/EU), does not go into details for what concerns the regime OA policies should apply (cf. in particular the section regarding “Open access to scientific publications”, §1), and therefore it does not mention what deposit scheme should be adopted. However, an indirect indication of the path Member States should follow – for what concerns deposit – in \textit{“[d]efin[ing] clear policies for the dissemination of and open access to scientific publications”} (2012/417/EU, §1) can be traced in Recital 11: \textit{“Preservation of scientific research results is in the public interest”}.  Moreover, in the context of Horizon2020, the European Commission requires deposit (GMGA, art. 29.2: \textit{“[Each beneficiary] must: (a) as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications”}), which cannot be waived (In fact, the exceptions admitted by artt. 29.1 – \textit{“}Unless it goes against their legitimate interests\textit{, each beneficiary must – as soon as possible – ‘disseminate’ its results by disclosing them to the public”} (emphasis added) – and 29.2 – \textit{“This does not change the obligation to protect results in Article 27, the confidentiality obligations in Article 36, the security obligations in Article 37 or the obligations to protect personal data in Article 39, all of which still apply”} – of the General Model Grant Agreement only apply to \textit{“dissemination”} (i.e. to OA), not to deposit.). The European Commission, in its Guidelines on OA in Horizon 2020, moreover emphasizes that deposit must take place independently from the route the contribution will undertake for what concerns Open Access in the strict sense: \textit{“This step applies even where open access publishing ('gold' open access) is chosen to ensure that the article is preserved in the long term”} (Guidelines, p. 5).  The “Decreto-legge 8 agosto 2013, n. 91, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 7 ottobre 2012, n. 112”, art. 4, which has transposed the above-mentioned "Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information" in the Italian judicial system, do not mention – precisely like the corresponding European text – the deposit regime to be adopted, but leaves to Italian public institutions the task to autonomously adopt the measures needed to promote Open Access (art. 4, comma 2: \textit{“I soggetti pubblici preposti all'erogazione o alla gestione dei finanziamenti della ricerca scientifica adottano, nella loro autonomia, le misure necessarie per la promozione dell'accesso aperto [...]”}). Therefore, given that a mandatory and non-waivable deposit actively contributes to OA policy effectiveness \cite{swan2015sept} \cite{shieber2013good}, such measures should include this particular regime for deposit.  If deposit is not waivable, that obviously means that there will be cases of “dark deposit” – i.e., of deposit of contributions which are not made OA. In fact, there can always be imagined cases of OA waiver: for example, when the policy allows it, either at faculty's discretion (we saw – \textit{supra}, § – that OA waiver is generally not opposed, and it is even recommended by some sources) or rather under particular circumstances (e.g., Italian policies always let an OA-adverse publisher triumph over them: supra, § [One may question whether the mere deposit too could succumb encountering a publisher opposing it. According to the AIB (Associazione Italiana Biblioteche), the answer should be negative, given that art. 67 of Italian law 633/1941 establishes a copyright exception for utilisation of works of authorship in the context of administrative procedures – among which we could also rank faculty evaluation –; as a consequence of this exception, any contract clause signed by the author which transfers to others rights on this type of utilisations does not apply (Osservazioni sul regolamento ANVUR). More generally, given that the mere deposit in the repository does not have independent economic significance, an author should be allowed to do it even if she transferred all her exploitation rights (GUIDELINES Parthenope, § 4). Again, the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” – as you may recall (supra, §) – recommended dark deposit, and specifically \textit{“[w]hen publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms”} (10BOAI, Recommendation 1): (Recommendation 1 \cite{budapest2012ten}):  the eventuality of a publisher opposing dark deposit (and prevailing over it) was not even taken into consideration.]); or when OA can be avoided on a legal basis (e.g., when privacy or patentability are at stake). Policy envisaging dark deposit are recommendable for more than a reason. First of all, if a contribution already is in the repository, this makes easier for the institution to distribute it \textit{“if and when the rights situation allows”} (THE IMPORTANCE OF DARK DEPOSIT). Secondly, faculty are more encouraged to deposit if they do not automatically associate it with making the deposited item Open Access \cite{shieber2013good}. Thirdly, \textit{“[e]very time an author deposits an article dark is a learning moment reminding the author that distribution is important”} (THE IMPORTANCE OF DARK DEPOSIT).  Moreover, deposit of non-OA materials can \textit{“facilitate search indexing and discovery”} \cite{shieber2013good}: in fact, deposit – even when dark – allows computer searches to take into consideration full texts, rather than the sole titles and abstracts (The importance of dark deposit; \cite{shieber2013good}). (For a different opinion, see European Commission’s Guidelines on OA in H2020, p. 7: \textit{“The purpose of the metadata requirement is to make it easier to find publications and ensure that EU funding is acknowledged. Mining bibliographic data is more efficient than mining full text versions”}.); obviously, the full texts remain by themselves not directly accessible to the user.  Unfortunately, the scheme of deposit highlighted in the present subsection is only followed by a minority of the examined Italian OA policies. Without replicating here the complete picture made above of the situation of Italian universities on the matter (\textit{supra}, §), we simply remind here that only Universities of Bergamo, of Milano, of Padova, and of Trieste apply the recommended regime; Universities of Cagliari and of Trento do not specify nothing about deposit waiver; the others admit waivers (even if some only in specific cases: e.g, Politecnico di Milano, University of Turin) or even state that deposit is only recommended.  If the deposit of the full text is key, the deposit of metadata is also strongly recommended (see, e.g., Guidelines H2020, p. 6;10BOAI  Recommendation 1.4). 1.4 \cite{budapest2012ten}).  Moreover, metadata should always be Open Access, independently from the regime applied to the pertaining contribution (\cite{shieber2013good};10BOAI  Recommendation 1.4). 1.4 \cite{budapest2012ten}).  For what concerns the fourteen Italian OA policies examined, “metadata” are normally cited \textit{in combo} with the “digital copy of the contribution”. Therefore, in those cases in which nothing more is specified about them, one could imagine that they will be submitted to the same OA regime established for the contribution they pertain to. If that is the case, an inefficiency emerges: normally, with Green OA, some time elapses between deposit and OA (Guidelines H2020, p. 5); but the cautions and checks required before making the contribution’s full text Open Access normally do not interest the mere bibliographic metadata. It is not for nothing that the “Ten years on from Budapest Open Access Initiative” recommends to put metadata OA from the moment of deposit (10BOAI, Recommendation 1.4). (Recommendation 1.4 \cite{budapest2012ten}).  Luckily, the majority (nine) of the examined policies explicitly state that metadata are always OA from the moment of deposit. On the contrary, Universities of Bergamo, of Padova, of Trento, of Trieste, and of Udine do not specify that: therefore, from the plain text of this second group of policies it is not understandable whether metadata are immediately put OA, or rather they are unnecessarily submitted to the same procedures established for the deposited full texts. 
...
Dealing with “content types” at the end of previous sub-section, we specifically left apart research data: as they deserve particular attention, we reserve to them this separated sub-section.  Research data – i.e., data supporting research results (research results which are generally embodied in journal articles or in the other content types we referred to supra, §) – were included by the Berlin Declaration in the \textit{“Definition of Open Access contributions”} – \textit{“Open Access contributions include original scientific research results, }raw data\textit{ [...]”} [BERLIN DECLARATION; emphasis added] –, and therefore the OA regime depicted by the Declaration should have applied to them too.   From its point of view, the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” is less ambitious, as it doesn't require deposit of datasets, but anyway it recommends university policies to welcome repository deposit of them [10BOAI, Recommendation 1.1: [Recommendation 1.1 \cite{budapest2012ten}:  \textit{“When possible, university policies […] should welcome repository deposits even when not required (e.g. datasets […]).”}]. The OA policy recommended by the European Commission includes Open Access to research data: its Communication “Towards better access to scientific information” denounces how the publishing of such a resource has been neglected until that moment by the scientific research community [EC Communication Towards better access, p. 5: \textit{“Until now, scientific research results have been disseminated essentially by publishing articles. There is no well-established practice of publishing the underlying data.”}], and – on that same date – its “Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information” consecrates its entire § 3 to \textit{“Open Access to research data”} (EC, 2012/417/EU).  In spite of this, art. 4 of the Italian “Decreto-legge 8 agosto 2013, n. 91, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 7 ottobre 2012, n. 112” – which transposed the EC Recommendation – does not mention research data: it only refers to “articles”. However, as Guibault correctly underlined, \textit{“[t]he European Open Access Policy is not binding on the Member States, who are free to adopt the policy that best suits the needs of their own scientific community”} (GUIBAULT, Chapter 7, p. 400).  Nonetheless, European Open Access policy becomes binding in the context of Horizon2020: signing the General Model Grant Agreement [GMGA], beneficiaries undergo the OA regime set by its article 29. And this article requires the deposit of \textit{“the research data needed to validate the results presented in the deposited scientific publications”} [art, 29.2 GMGA]: for example, \textit{“statistics, results of experiments, measurements, observations resulting from fieldwork, survey results, interview recordings and images”} [Guidelines, p. 3]. However, it must be underlined that this requirement is merely an obligation of means, and not an absolute obligation: in fact, the beneficiary \textit{“must aim to”} deposit the research data [GMGA, art. 29.2; Guidelines, p. 5. This is confirmed by another sentence of the Guidelines, p. 5: \textit{“after depositing publications and, }where possible\textit{, underlying data [...]”} (emphasis added).]. Moreover, the OA making of research data is simply recommended, not required [Guidelines, p. 5: \textit{“Beneficiaries are also invited to grant open access to this data, but there is no obligation to do so”}.]. [By the way, this different OA regime applied to research data – in fact, deposit of scientific publications is on the contrary built as an absolute obligation, and their OA making is required – shows the inadequacy of ROARMAP's scheme of analysis under this point of view, as it merely refers to “Deposit of item” and “Making deposited item Open Access”, without distinguishing between the item “research data” and the item “scientific publications”.] 
...
Regarding the first aspect, we can notice that the re-use which consists in the creation of derivative works is not always mentioned.  The Berlin Declaration of 2003 explicitly stated that a contribution, to be considered OA, must allow users to – among other things – \textit{“make and distribute derivative works”} [Berlin Declaration].  The Budapest Declaration of 2002, on the contrary, stated that Open Access should permit to \textit{“copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose”}: one might assert that \textit{“lawful purpose”} may also include the realization of derivative works; however, some lines below the Declaration states that \textit{“the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work”} [BOAI original], showing to admit – and even to recommend – Open Access policies and licences leaving in the hands of the author the choice to let users make derivative works or not. It must be noticed, however, that the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” – if on the one hand it repeats the same statement [10BOAI, Prologue] [Prologue \cite{budapest2012ten}]  – on the other hand \textit{“recommend[s] CC-BY or an equivalent license”} – and not CC-BY-ND – \textit{“as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work”} [10BOAI, Recommendation 2.1]; [Recommendation 2.1 \cite{budapest2012ten}];  moreover, it recommends universities to \textit{“require libre OA under open licenses, }preferably CC-BY licenses or the equivalent, as a condition \textit{of their financial support”} [10BOAI, Recommendation 3.5; [Recommendation 3.5 \cite{budapest2012ten};  emphasis added.]. This demonstrates that – in the context of the Budapest Declaration – an Open Access allowing users to make derivative works is not per se opposed (in fact, authors are encouraged to choose a CC-BY license; and the same universities should adopt measures driving authors to embrace this type of license); what is opposed, is merely an OA policy compelling authors to allow the making of derivative works, instead of leaving to them the final choice. The orientation of the European Commission on this matter is not clear. Its “Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information” [2012/417/EU, Recital 5] states that \textit{“[o]pen access policies aim to [...] enable the use and reuse of scientific research results. Such policies should be implemented taking into account the challenge of intellectual property rights”}: even if policies should aim to enable “reuse”, this term is not defined, and anyway IP rights must be taken into consideration in drawing the policies. In the context of Horizon 2020, we experience similar interpretation issues: here, derivative works are not mentioned in the list of re-uses – \textit{“the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine”} [H2020 Guidelines, p. 4] –; however, this list is not comprehensive, but only illustrative; moreover, authors are \textit{“encourage[d]”} – and not “compelled” – to choose CC-BY and CC0 licences [Guidelines, p. 7], just as in the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative”.  Regarding the second aspect, we can notice that the Budapest and the Berlin [cf. Also HOORN: \textit{“The first-mentioned condition [of the Berlin Declaration] can only be met if the rights holder decides that he or she wants to do two things, i.e. grant free access to end-users -which can be done in a straight-forward way - but also grant a licence to reuse the material for any responsible purpose”}.] Declarations, as well as the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative”, place on an equal footing free access and re-use: they are both required in order to realize Open Access. The same can be stated regarding the EC's “Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information” [2012/417/EU, Recital 5].  The Open Access policy applied in the context of Horizon 2020 follows a midway path. The sole General Model Grant Agreement seems to require only free access for the purposes of Open Access: \textit{“Each beneficiary must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results”} [GMGA, art. 29.2]. However, interpreted on the basis of the related Guidelines: \textit{“[t]o meet this requirement, beneficiaries must, at the very least, ensure that any scientific peer reviewed publications can be read online, downloaded and printed. Since any further rights – such as the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine – make publications more useful, beneficiaries should make every effort to provide as many of these options as possible”} [H2020 Guidelines, p. 4]. Therefore, we can notice an absolute obligation for what concerns free access, and a relative obligation for what concerns libre access.  Finally, the Italian “Decreto-legge 8 agosto 2013, n. 91, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 7 ottobre 2012, n. 112” [“Decreto-legge 8 agosto 2013, n. 91, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 7 ottobre 2012, n. 112”, art. 4, which has transposed the above-mentioned “Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information” in the Italian judicial system.] only requires – for the purposes of OA – free access, and not also libre access [\textit{“[…] L'accesso aperto si realizza: a) tramite la pubblicazione da parte dell'editore, al momento della prima pubblicazione, in modo tale che l'articolo sia accessibile a titolo gratuito dal luogo e nel momento scelti individualmente”}.]. Notwithstanding the distance of the Italian provision from the international and European Recommendation it transposes – and from the other international and European OA texts – the Italian approach is anyway commendable, at least if we agree with the following assertion by Suber and Shieber: \textit{“Authors subject to this kind policy may use open licenses, such as Creative Commons licenses, to enhance user rights. The kind of policy we recommend here is compatible with the use of open licenses but does not require them. Institutions may adopt this kind of policy and decide afterwards when or whether to make use of open licenses. Similarly, it may adopt this kind of policy and leave authors free to make these decisions on their own, case by case”} \cite{shieber2013good}. According to them, it is therefore advisable to leave to authors the choice to allow re-use (pay attention: all type of re-use, not only the making of derivative works) when they make their contribution OA: OA can therefore be limited to free access. The above-mentioned Italian provision, by requiring from public institutions just those measures necessary to realize free access, precisely implement this suggestion, as it does not impose to institutional policies to require libre access. However, given that libre access is the most complete realization of Open Access, it is our opinion that the “Decreto-legge” should have at least mentioned it as something institutions should encourage.  After all, as the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” correctly said: \textit{“In developing strategy and setting priorities, we recognize that gratis access is better than priced access, libre access is better than gratis access, and libre under CC-BY or the equivalent is better than libre under more restrictive open licenses. We should achieve what we can when we can. We should not delay achieving gratis in order to achieve libre, and we should not stop with gratis when we can achieve libre”} [BOAI10, Recommendation 2.1]. [Recommendation 2.1 \cite{budapest2012ten}].  The best way to promote libre access is probably to offer faculty the possibility – and to encourage him – to apply to the deposited contribution a Creative Commons (CC) license [cf., e.g.: Frankel-Nestor, p. 16; HOORN]. Similar or equivalent open licenses – even when they implement the same degree of openness – are less advisable, because – not being universally known – they require a greater effort from authors who want to make their works re-usable, and from users who want to re-use them. Moreover, if all the institutions used the same type of licences (and therefore why not CC, as they are already widespread?), that would foster interoperability among OA contributions (for example, for text mining purposes).  Among CC licenses, CC-BY should be especially recommended to faculty [H2020 Guidelines, p. 7; BOAI10], \cite{budapest2012ten}],  given that it allows also derivative works [Cf. \textit{supra}. See also Il diritto d'autore nell'insegnamento, p. 19.] and commercial uses [It is not always easy for a normal user to be certain if her re-use would be qualified as commercial or not commercial, and therefore CC-BT-NC licenses may prevent legitimate re-use in borderline cases.]. On the basis of all the considerations made in the present sub-section, what should we expect from an OA policy in order to labelling it as commendable?  To sum-up: 
...
\textbf{7. Faculty vote as a legitimization}  A bottom-up approach in the adoption of OA policies is strongly recommended: many of the contacted policy-makers mentioned it as a good practice. This is because an OA regime imposed unilaterally by the institution risks to encounter opposition from faculty, and therefore to not be effective in implementing OA (also given the enforcement issues outlined supra, §).  For a bottom-up approach to be considered really commendable, it should end up with a faculty vote adopting/approving the OA policy. The “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” recommends it explicitly: \textit{“When possible, university policies should be adopted by faculty vote”} [BOAI10, Recommendation 1.1.]. [Recommendation 1.1 \cite{budapest2012ten}].  In fact, the involvement of faculty in the adoption of an OA policy is also a form of legitimization of the policy itself, and above all of the non-exclusive licences it sometimes requires researchers to provide to the institution [Cf. PRIEST, p. 426.]. After all, an OA policy constitutes an interference – no matter how soft, and how justifiable on the basis of commendable purposes – in the copyright of the author. In this regard, the approach adopted by the Italian universities examined is commendable: indeed, all of them submitted the OA policy drafted to faculty vote approval (even those which successively formally adopted it by a “decreto rettorale”, i.e. by an ordinance issued by the Rector).  Actually, this complete uniformity of approaches finds an at least partial explanation in what the Italian legislator stated in a law regarding university organization – “Legge 30 dicembre 2010, n. 240”. In fact, its article 2.1, letter e), confers to the “senato accademico” (which represents faculty) the competence to formulate proposals and mandatory opinions, and to approve university polices, in matter of research [\textit{“[A]ttribuzione al senato accademico della competenza a formulare proposte e pareri obbligatori in materia di didattica, di ricerca e di servizi agli studenti […]; ad approvare, previo parere favorevole del consiglio di amministrazione, i regolamenti […] in materia di didattica e di ricerca”}.].