What does this prove, pray? A search in Google Scholar for "Open Access" and God yields 36,300 results, and "Open Access" and the devil 10,600 results.
I share Peter M-R's unhappiness with the term 'libre OA', though maybe for different reasons. It is tautological: true OA (as we all – including Harnad – envisioned as our goal in the BOAI) is 'libre' already. In French that seems to be clear: Open Access is usually translated as Accès libre. What would 'libre OA' be in French? Accès libre libre? Having a 'first things first' approach with 'green' OA to reaching the OA goal is a legitimate stance to take (whether or not I or anybody else agrees with the idea); arbitrarily and unilaterally changing the goalposts – or the definition of what OA should be – along the way is not. Jan Velterop On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:09, Hélène.Bosc wrote: > Peter, > you wrote : "I am less than happy with the term "libre" which does not > correspond to usage elsewhere and is at best confusing" > > In French we say "Les absents ont toujours tort" (Absent people are always > wrong) . > It seems that in April 2008, you were not present in the OA movement > (Suber's and Harnad's definition!!!) and specially in the American Scientist > discussions when "Libre and Gratis" appeared. Please see : > http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind08&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&O=D&F=l&P=37608 > > A research with Google Scholar with "Open Access" gives the following > results: > http://bit.ly/OAsuberGS 3240 > http://bit.ly/OAharnadGS 3740 > http://bit.ly/OAmurrayrustGS 716 > > The print of these 6980 "Open Access" is too strong today, in every mind and > you cannot resist to what has been written about "Open Access" during all > these past years by "two individuals ", as you say. > (Quoted from one of your recent messages : "It is now left to one (SH) or > possibly two (PS) individuals to state what OA is." ) > > > Hélène Bosc > Open Access to Scientific Communication > http://open-access.infodocs.eu/ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter Murray-Rust > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Cc: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:29 PM > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> JV: "the definition of OA... is being changed... instead of any OA >> achievements >> being measured against the goal that has been set" > > The 2002 BOAI definition was refined in 2008 to name its two constituents: > > http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre > > This statement is simply wrong. > > The linked resource is written by Peter Suber alone. He uses the pronoun "I" > throughout much of the mail. I applaud his efforts to describe the situation. > (I am less than happy with the term "libre" which does not correspond to > usage elsewhere and is at best confusing. But since it can apparently mean > almost removal of any condition, no matter how minor, it has very limited > use). > > At the end Peter Suber makes it clear he is NOT "refining BOAI". He says > (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html > ) > > I'm [PS] not proposing a change in the BBB definition, and I haven't > retreated an inch in my support for it. I'm simply proposing vocabulary to > help us talk unambiguously about two species of free online access. [PMR's > emphasis] > > 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
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
