On 10 Oct 2012, at 23:37, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: > Jan, > > I do not think it does, provided that the *wherever* quest for libre that you > suggest does not get confused with the *absolute need* to get libre and > nothing else.
That would be silly. But the *absolute need* is there, for data-intensive disciplines, or they can't do the research they need to do. By all means, mandate for the lowest common denominator, but don't frustrate efforts to reach further. > What I think concerns Stevan is that some people get so hung up on libre as a > result of the systematic nature of the *wherever* that they downgrade gratis > to the level of an ugly, ultimately unacceptable, compromise. Well, it *is* the lowest common OA denominator. > At that point, perfection becomes the enemy of the good. Peter Suber has > written some good pages in his book on Open Access, by the way. A bit of a platitude, Jean-Claude. If that were applied to science and knowledge discovery we wouldn't be anywhere near we are now. > > Also, if libre is not currently realistically possible, why go for it, except > to reassert a principle? 'Libre' (let's call it BOAI-compliant OA, for the avoidance of doubt) is certainly realistically possible. *Universal* BOAI-compliant OA may not be as yet. > And going for gratis does not prevent reasserting the ultimate goal of libre, > while accepting the temporary gain of gratis. Not just reasserting, but working actively on the spread of BOAI-compliant OA. 'Green', ocular access is a way station; not the goal. What's wrong with that? Arguing that advocating BOAI-compliant OA should wait until everybody has arrived at the way station is not sensible. That could take ages. The world, and science, moves on. > > Finally, there are negotiating situations where speaking only in terms of > gratis is probably wise to achieve at least gratis. Lawyer-style minds are > often concerned about the toe-into-the-door possibility. In such situations, > the libre imperative could indeed work against the gratis. The Dutch expression for this is "cold water fear". I think the term FUD approaches this in English. Of course, in negotiations it's easier still to go for minimal, ocular OA with a two-year embargo. But proper negotiations are about finding out what the important issues are for the other party. They often result in a win-win, at least to a degree. Making articles mineable and the mined results reusable may not be the biggest barrier for publishers. In fact, I suspect they are easier for publishers to 'give away' than ocular access, because they don't threaten their business models directly. Especially if mined data can be made attributable and 'link-backable' — sorry, I can't think of an appropriate proper English word here — to the author and the article/journal from which it was mined (see http://openphacts.org/ and http://nanopub.org/ for instance). > I suspect may librarian/publisher negotiations would fall in this category > and I suspect many publishers approach the whole issue of open access with a > cautionary mind. > > That is the the best I can do on your question. It is a tough question > because each category of actors (researchers, librarians, publishers, > administrators) will have a different take on it. I agree with you on it being a tough question. > > Best, > > Jean-Claude > Best, Jan Velterop > > > > > > > > > > Le mercredi 10 octobre 2012 à 21:53 +0100, Jan Velterop a écrit : >> >> Jean-Claude, >> >> I get that. But I have a question that I don't think has been answered yet. >> I'll phrase the question differently: Do you think that going for libre >> wherever we can, impedes the chances of achieving gratis where libre is not >> currently realistically possible? >> >> Best, >> >> Jan >> >> On 10 Oct 2012, at 21:04, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: >> >> > Jan, >> > >> > Please read again what I wrote. I repeat: >> > >> > "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." >> > >> > I believe that what I wrote is not ambiguous or difficult to understand. >> > >> > Ot, to put it differently: No, it does not mean... etc. >> > >> > Jean-Claude >> > >> > >> > -------- Message d'origine-------- >> > De: [email protected] de la part de Jan Velterop >> > Date: mer. 10/10/2012 13:51 >> > À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> > Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum >> > Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA >> > goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY >> > >> > 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 >>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
