Hello,
As far as I understand english, it seems that
Jean-Claude says exactly the contrary :
Having gratis access is a first goal that
doesn't impede having free (re-utilisable)
acces after.
For one time Jean-Claude strategically agree
with Stevan, I only can clap my hands.
Hervé Le Crosnier
Le 10/10/2012 19:51, Jan Velterop a écrit :
> Jean-Claude,
>
> Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis
> Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal
> goal? If so, on what basis?
>
> Best,
>
> Jan
>
> On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote:
>
>> I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me
>> that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA,
>> if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in
>> my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not
>> reach the ideal solution right away.
>>
>> The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether
>> the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular
>> case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would
>> impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre.
>>
>> Jean-Claude Guédon
>>
>>
>> -------- Message d'origine--------
>> De: [email protected] de la part de Jan Velterop
>> Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07
>> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum
>> Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis
>> to CC-BY
>>
>> Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the
>> definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on
>> the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can
>> mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found
>> here).
>>
>> What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no
>> machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If
>> that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to
>> different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The
>> destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001.
>> I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards
>> the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship.
>> That is misguided.
>>
>> Jan Velterop
>>
>>
>> On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>
>>> ** Cross-Posted **
>>>
>>> This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher
>>> community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA
>>> mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online
>>> access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights):
>>>
>>> 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should
>>> on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use
>>> and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA
>>> growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence
>>> another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY).
>>>
>>> 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online
>>> access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free
>>> online access and not more.
>>>
>>> 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green
>>> OA today.
>>>
>>> 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs
>>> during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals.
>>>
>>> 5. "Upgrading" Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean
>>> that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their
>>> length would be years, not months.
>>>
>>> 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become
>>> legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby
>>> doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice.
>>>
>>> 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics
>>> and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all
>>> fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby
>>> victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply
>>> prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and
>>> little OA).
>>>
>>> 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is
>>> not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a
>>> conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival
>>> publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription
>>> journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby
>>> undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs:
>>> Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a
>>> forced immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY...
>>>
>>> 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and
>>> Green CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action.
>>>
>>> 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its
>>> authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that
>>> motivates the quest for CC-BY!):
>>>
>>> 11. And the very real threat of legal action facing Green CC-BY
>>> self-archiving by authors and Green CC-BY mandates by institutions (unlike
>>> the bogus threat of legal action against Gratis Green self-archiving and
>>> Gratis Green mandates) would of course put an end to authors' providing
>>> Green OA and institutions' mandating Green OA.
>>>
>>> 12. In theory, funders, unlike institutions, can mandate whatever they
>>> like, since they are paying for the research: But if a funder Gold OA
>>> mandate like Finch/RCUK's -- that denies fundees the right to publish in
>>> any journal that does not offer either Gold CC-BY or Gratis-Green with at
>>> most a 6-12 month embargo, and that only allows authors to pick Green if
>>> the journal does not offer Gold -- is already doomed to author resentment,
>>> resistance and non-compliance, then adding the constraint that any Green
>>> must be CC-BY would be to court outright researcher rebellion.
>>>
>>> In short, the pre-emptive insistence upon CC-BY OA, if recklessly and
>>> irrationally heeded, would bring the (already slow) progress toward OA, and
>>> the promise of progress, to a grinding halt.
>>>
>>> Finch/RCUK's bias toward paid Gold over cost-free Green was clearly a
>>> result of self-interested publisher lobbying. But if it were compounded by
>>> a premature and counterproductive insistence on CC-BY for all by a small
>>> segment of the researcher community, then the prospects of OA (both Gratis
>>> and CC-BY), so fertile if we at last take the realistic, pragmatic course
>>> of mandating Gratis Green OA globally first, would become as fallow as they
>>> have been for the past two decades, for decades to come.
>>>
>>> Some quote/comments follow below:
>>>
>>> Jan Velterop: We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was
>>> the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could
>>> deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective
>>> of the publisher's views.
>>>
>>> I said -- because it's true, and two decades' objective evidence shows it
>>> -- that authors can deposit the refereed, final draft with no realistic
>>> threat of copyright action from the publisher.
>>>
>>> JV: If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence
>>> to the manuscript version.
>>>
>>> Nothing of the sort. Author self-archiving to provide free online access
>>> (Gratis Green OA) is one thing -- claiming and dispensing re-use and
>>> republication rights (CC-BY) is quite another.
>>>
>>> JV: If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open
>>> access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final,
>>> published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by
>>> Stevan Harnad is invalid.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. Authors can make their refereed final drafts free for all online
>>> without the prospect of legal action from the publisher, but not with a
>>> CC-BY license to re-use and re-publish.
>>>
>>> Moreover, for authors who elect to comply with publisher embargoes on Green
>>> Gratis OA, there is the option of depositing in Closed Access and relying
>>> on the Almost-OA Button to provide eprint-requesters with individual
>>> eprints during the embargo. This likewise does not come with CC-BY rights.
>>>
>>> JV: Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be
>>> deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence
>>> his U-turn, I don't know.
>>>
>>> No U-turn whatsoever. Just never the slightest implication from me that
>>> anything more than free online access was intended.
>>>
>>> JV: But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also
>>> means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach
>>> the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author,
>>> as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do
>>> is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the
>>> repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't
>>> like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply
>>> the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article.
>>>
>>> The above is extremely unrealistic and counterproductive policy advice to
>>> institutions and funders.
>>>
>>> If an OA mandate is gratuitously upgraded to CC-BY it just means that most
>>> authors will be unable to get their papers published in their journal of
>>> choice if they comply with the mandate. So authors will not comply with the
>>> mandate, and the mandate will fail.
>>>
>>> Peter Murray-Rust: If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm
>>> for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I
>>> can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they
>>> fight anyway
>>>
>>> The downside is that authors won't fight, and hence OA itself will lose the
>>> global Gratis Green OA that is fully within its reach, and stay in the
>>> non-OA limbo (neither Gratis nor CC-BY, neither Green nor Gold) in which
>>> most research still is today -- and has been for two decades.
>>>
>>> And the irony is that -- speaking practically rather than ideologically --
>>> the fastest and surest prospect for both CC-BY and Gold is to first quickly
>>> reach global Gratis Green OA. Needlessly over-reaching can undermine all of
>>> OA's objectives.
>>>
>>> PMR: It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It
>>> is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at
>>> all.
>>>
>>> On the contrary: raising the Gratis Green 6-12 goalposts to immediate Green
>>> CC-BY would make the Finch/RCUK a pure hybrid-Gold mandate and nothing
>>> else. And its failure would be a resounding one.
>>>
>>> PMR: And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week
>>>
>>> That would certainly be a prominent historic epitaph for OA. I hope, on the
>>> contrary, that pragmatic voices will be raised during OA week, so that we
>>> can get on with reaching for the reachable instead of gratuitously raising
>>> the goalposts to unrealistic heights.
>>>
>>> Stevan Harnad
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GOAL mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
