On 2012-05-12, at 8:20 AM, Richard Poynder wrote:
> List members will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that
> the nub of this issue is that Peter Murray-Rust believes that when a research
> library pays a subscription for a scholarly journal (or a collection of
> journals) the subscription should give researchers at that institution the
> right both to read the content with their eyeballs, and to mine it with their
> machines -- and that this should be viewed as an automatic right.
Licensing rights are an excellent topic for the
Library licensing list: LibLicense-L Discussion
Forum liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu
I am not implying that they should not be discussed
on the Global Open Access List (GOAL) too, when
they are relevant to OA.
But it seems to me that when the Director for
Universal Access of a rather large publisher
posts a query to an open access list about
what we wish to encourage publishers to do
(and praise), we should encourage and praise
measures that will help us reach OA, not
measures that are either orthogonal to OA or
even potential sops to sweeten the failure to
rescind measures that make it harder to
reach OA.
Stevan Harnad
> On 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked:
>> [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to
>> facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly
>> communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?
>> Dr Alicia Wise
>> Director of Universal Access
>> Elsevier
>> On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>>
>>> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
>>> publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining.
>>> That's all they need to do.
>>> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.
>
> SH: So let's all forget about OA...
>> Elsevier's shameful, cynical, self-serving and incoherent
>> clause about "mandates for systematic postings" ("you may
>> post if you wish but not if you must"), which attempts
>> to take it all back, should be dropped, immediately.
>>
>> That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that
>> Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on -- is a
>> paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD and
>> double-talk. It has no legal force or meaning, but it
>> scares authors.
>>
>> Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement,
>> celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier
>> irreversibly on the side of the angels.
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
