On 12 December 2013 15:14, Sally Morris <sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>wrote:
> But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily > tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put > it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read > them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it) > Sorry Sally, but I really have to disagree. It is a definition for what a number of people considered to be important. Plus, it is consistent with the other existing definitions of "open ..." (such as open source). Clearly, other people may have a different opinion. Some may feel that everyone who needs access already has it (or they at least don't feel that people denied access are particularly relevant to them). Others may believe that only being able to read is important, and additional terms, whilst beneficial are not as necessary, and may be holding back delivering "access". That doesn't mean that the BOAI definition is too narrow. It means that people are campaigning for a different end. Which is fine. But as they are different ends (with some similarities), let's call them different things. We have "Open Access" - as defined by BOAI, and there is "public access", which provides the ability to read for free, but with none of the other freedoms. Let people choose which unambiguously defined term provides for optimal scholarly exchange, rather than redefining a 10 year-old term, changes to which nobody will ever be able to agree on. G
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
