No, mandated Green Gratis OA cannot be prevented or "rescinded" by publishers
(and publishers are well aware of that -- it is researchers who are
naive about it).
On the contrary, the more OA we have, the harder it is to retard or resist it:
the change is optimal, self-reinforcing, and irreversible:
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned
Please, please let's stop being so short-sighted. The reason it is so
important to lower barriers and grasp what is within reach
(universally mandated Green, Gratis OA) is that that is what will
bring us all the other good things we also seek (Libre OA, Gold OA,
copyright reform).
Over-reaching, and carping about definitions and ideals, and
especially preaching that continuing no-OA is preferable to low-bar-OA
is just what is keeping us treading water year upon year, instead of
flooding the planet (irreversibly) with the Green Gratis OA that we
could already have.
Stevan Harnad
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ** Cross-Posted **
>
> On 2012-05-09, at 4:12 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
>
> I would favour doing away with both the terms 'libre OA' and 'gratis OA'.
>
> Open Access suffices. It's the 'open' that says it all. Especially if it is
> made
>
> clear that OA means BOAI-compliant OA in the context of scholarly
>
> research literature.
>
>
> I don't doubt that Jan would like to do away with the terms libre and gratis
> OA.
> He has been arguing all along that free online access is not open access,
> ever since 2003 on the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
>
> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#msg6478
>
> This would mean that my "subversive proposal" of 1994 was not really a
> proposal for open access and that the existing open access mandates
> and policies of funders and institutions worldwide are not really open
> access
> mandates or policies.
> http://roarmap.eprints.org/
>
> It is in large part for this reason that in 2008 Peter Suber and I proposed
> the terms "gratis" and "libre" open access to ensure that the term
> "open access" retained its meaning, and to make explicit the two
> distinct conditions involved: free online access (gratis OA) and
> certain re-use rights (libre OA):
>
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/strong-and-weak-oa.html
>
> For Peter Murray-Rust's crusade for journal article text-mining rights,
> apart from reiterating my full agreement that these are highly important
> and highly desirable and even urgent in certain fields, I would like
> to note that -- as PM-R has stated -- neither gratis OA nor libre OA
> is necessary for the kinds of text-mining rights he is seeking. They
> can be had via a special licensing agreement from the publisher.
>
> There is no ambiguity there: The text-mining rights can be granted
> even if the articles themselves are not made openly accessible,
> free for all.
>
> And, as Richard Poynder has just pointed out, publishers are
> quite aware of (perhaps even relieved with) this option, with
> Elsevier lately launching an experiment in it:
>
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2012-May/000433.html
>
> This makes it clear that the text-mining rights PM-R seeks can be
> had without either sort of OA, gratis or libre...
>
> Let us hope the quest for Open Access itself is not derailed in this
> direction.
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> On 9 May 2012, at 08:30, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> JV> So by all means, let legal measures play a role, but not at the
>> expense of lowering the bar to 'gratis' OA. If one believes in mandates,
>> then there is no reason why BOAI-compliant OA ('libre' in your [SH] lingo)
>> should not be mandated.
>>
> I'd like to suggest that the term "libre OA" be dropped. "Gratis OA" implies
> freedom for anyone to read the manuscript somewhere. "Libre OA" imlies the
> "removal of some permission barriers" but neither says which or how many.
> Since Gratis OA has already required the removal of one permission barrier
> (the permission being granted to post on the web, permanently) it can be
> argued that all Gratis OA is ipso facto Libre OA.
>
> This renders the term Unnecessary and confusiing, and allows many people and
> organizations to imply they are granting rights and permissions beyond
> GratisOA when they are not. If there are current examples where the use of
> "libreOA" plays a useful role it would be useful to see them.
>
> The only terms that make operational sense and are clear are Gratis OA and
> BOAI-compliant OA . It is a pity that the latter is a long phrase and maybe
> its usage will contract the phrase.
>
> I would be grateful for clear discourse on these definitions and the
> suggestion of retiring "libreOA".
>
> P.
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
|
