At 11:01 AM 4/26/99 +0100, you wrote:
>There is one small problem with the early part of Professor Harnad's
>proposal:
>
>> Let them continue to give their papers away to publishers to sell, but
>> let them also archive it online, for free. That is all it will take!
>> Readers will vote with their eyes. They will of course prefer to access
>> the literature for free online -- Los Alamos has already proven that.
>
>Unfortunately, most publishers at present demand that authors assign the
>IPR to the publisher -- which means that the author would be committing an
>offence against the Copyright, Design and Patents Act by publishing the
>material him/herself. Of course, authors could resist this demand; but
>since to do so could deny them publication in a prestigious journal, and
>since they are under pressure from institutions because of the RAE, and
>given that Professor Harnad is arguing that you cannot expect authors NOT
>to wish to publish in the known literature, this proposal seems to fall by
>the logic of his own argument.
A simple answer: is there anything illogical about a non-exclusive licence
to publish? See our (e-print!) paper
Making the Most of Electronic Journals
http://xxx.lanl.gov/html/cs.DL/9812016
Steve Hitchcock
Open Journal Project
Multimedia Research Group, Department of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (01)703 593256 Fax: +44 (01)703 592865
*****************************************************
Open Journal Project Web page http://journals.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
"Bringing journals alive on the World Wide Web"
*****************************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|