> 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.
I don't think that there is a shred of evidence to support the thesis that we would have 100% green gratis OA today if only nobody had mentioned full OA. And suggesting that anybody is preaching 'continued no-OA is preferable to low-bar-OA' is a rather disingenuous misrepresentation of the position of those of us who support full OA take.
David
On 9 May 2012, at 12:53, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> No, mandated Green Gratis OA cannot be prevented or "rescinded" by publishers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
>>
>>
|