Dear All, To me, Open Access implies unqualified free and unlimited access to all journal contents for ALL interested readers/users, regardless of location and resource-capacity. Anything short of this no matter how qualified, seems restrictive and prescriptive. Dr. Uzodinma Adirieje Executive Director Afrihealth Information Projects/Afrihealth Optonet Association Suite 216, Block G, FHA Cornershop, Lugbe, Airport Road, Abuja P.O. Box 8880, Wuse Abuja, Nigeria Ph: +234 802 856 2348; Mob: +234 803 472 5905 Emails: covianige...@gmail.com, afrihealthoptonet...@yahoo.com
________________________________ From: Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> Cc: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 11:37 AM Subject: [BOAI] Meaning of Open Access > >** 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 <amscifo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jan Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> 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 >>>GOAL@eprints.org >>>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>GOAL mailing list >>GOAL@eprints.org >>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> > > >-- >To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: >http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f > > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
