I missed this [Ubiquity Press post from last April](https://blog.ubiquitypress.com/cc-by-a-somewcautionary-licensing-tale-127e407b3da5):

> Until 2021, Ubiquity Press published all of our books under the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY) […] However, at the end of 2020, we were made aware that another company had taken a very large number of open access book titles that had been published under the CC BY license, including those from Ubiquity Press, and was re-selling them under their own name.

I've always been mystified by the fetishism for [CC BY](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), particularly weighed against the [CC BY-NC](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/) alternative. Cynical commercial uptake of the kind that [victimized Ubiquity](https://blog.ubiquitypress.com/cc-by-a-somewcautionary-licensing-tale-127e407b3da5) is the predictable result. Reacting to the same news, Martin Eve [wrote](https://eve.gd/2021/03/02/oa-books-being-reprinted-under-cc-by-license/):

> I have to admit, today, that I was wrong about the risk of others reprinting open-access monographs produced under a Creative Commons license. […] Perhaps the -NC license should be considered, after all. Again, I admit that I may have been overly naive/trusting/hopeful in previously spurning such a license. The world is such a disappointment.