On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Hélène.Bosc <[email protected]>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) . > I am sorry that the discussion seems to have descended to personalities - this seems to be somewhat common on this list. I will reply briefly and hope to end there. I am not an ignorant newcomer to OA. My first posting to this list was in 1998 http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0096.html It seems that in April 2008, you were not present in the OA > movement (Suber's and Harnad's definition!!!) > I was not a regular contributor to this list but I was active in OA, for example, invited to contribute to a special issue of Serials Review in 2008 on Open Access http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009879130800004X (and before I am criticized for not being Open, yes - I put it in the Cambridge DSpace repository - I also put it on Nature Precedings). and specially in the American Scientist discussions when "Libre and > Gratigratis and libres" appeared. Please see : > > http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind08&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&O=D&F=l&P=37608 > The mail you reference is NOT about gratis and libre , it is about "weak OA" and "strong OA". I followed that discussion very closely, mainly from Peter Suber's blog. I did not comment on this mailing list. "weak" and "strong" were discarded in favour of "gratis" and "libre". There is, as far as I know, nor formal community page (as opposed to mail list discussion) about gratis and libre other than http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm (Peter Suber alone) from which I quote: "I've decided to use the term "gratis OA" for the removal of price barriers alone and "libre OA" for the removal of price and at least some permission barriers. The new terms allow us to speak unambiguously about these two species of free online access." The "I" here is Peter Suber. [BTW I should make it clear that I find PS's writing very clear.] My point is and was that the terms libre and gratis are proposed by 1-2 individuals. Nothing wrong with that but there is no formal community endorsement or critique available in static form. And since definitions seem to be highly volatile on this list and in OA generally that is a pity IMO. > 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* > > These are highly imprecise searches and are not really worth discussing. Many of the MurrayRust references are not to me and many of mine are purely scientific. So take them out and reduce me to about 25 milliHarnads if you think it's useful. > > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
