On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Joe Kraus <[email protected]> wrote:
* You seem to confuse the Boolean AND with the Boolean OR. By saying that > some researchers "don't want free online access: [they] want free online > access with re-use rights," you make it seem as if they want either one > access model OR the other access model (as if they would not read and learn > from an article that has free online access if they can't get reuse > rights.) When, it is the case that many researchers who want reuse rights > want both free online access, AND they would also like to have reuse rights. > *But free online access is already within immediate reach and free online access with re-use rights is not...* * I am familiar with the argument that the perfect is the enemy of the > good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good You > seem to imply that your version of "good enough" for Gratis OA should be > good enough for others because it is good enough for you. I would argue > that that is not the case for everyone. Just because Gratis OA is good > enough for you does not mean that it is good enough for everyone. No one > made you the decider of good enough. > *But all non-subscribing users need free online access; not all or even most or many users need re-use rights**…* > * Concerning the definition of good-enough, I've heard from some > publishers for years and years that access to content through subscriptions > is good enough because most researchers are affiliated with research > institutions, and if the institution does not subscribe, then they can get > access through Interlibrary loan. Also, if a researcher is not affiliated, > they can just drive to a university library for access, and that is good > enough. That definition of good enough is not good enough for many people. > (No one said subscription access was good enough.) > * In the 1960s, NASA shouldn't have tried to go to the Moon, because it > was extremely difficult and dangerous. It would have been a lot easier for > NASA to only put a man in orbit around the Earth. That would have been > good enough to show Russia our technical superiority. [In other words, the > wants and needs of some people and organizations may seem outlandish, but > you will never know unless you have a lofty goal, and you give it a try. > There is nothing wrong with people who would like to see greater Libre OA > with reuse rights.] > *But free online access today will pave the way for free online access with re-use rights tomorrow...* * When you said "But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a > field are near-useless..." What is your citation for this claim? I would > argue that reuse rights and text mining rights to the corpus of the PLOS > article archive is a boon to many researchers even though they can't access > all research in a specific given field. > (Near-useless does not mean completely useless.) > * While I would like all scholarly content to be CC0 so that readers and > researchers don't have to worry about copyright claims and issues, I am > realistic that most academic and scholarly content is not ever going to be > CC0. But, I would much rather have academic content be Libre (and/or > CC-BY) so that the reuse rights can be taken advantage of for people who > wish to use that feature. So, I have an even loftier best case scenario > than your argument saying that Libre is too much to ask for right now, and > that OA advocates should just be happy to settle for gratis-only content. > Thus, my definition of good enough (and better, best, and perfect) is > certainly different from your definitions. > *But institutions and funders can sooner **mandate*<http://roarmap.eprints.org/>* free online access than free online access with re-use rights…* > The more I learn about the needs and wants of various researchers, I am > starting to see the advantages of Libre scholarly content. I won't turn > down access to gratis OA, but I would rather support Libre OA scholarship > when the situation seems fit. > *But the better is already **within reach*<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=grasp+OR+libre+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>* and the best is not: why not grasp it?* Stevan Harnad Joseph R. Kraus > [email protected] > 303-871-4586 > University of Denver | Main Library > Connecting people to ideas > > > ________________________________________ > From: Stevan Harnad [[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 5:22 PM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Cc: SPARC Forum; LibLicense-L Discussion Forum > Subject: [sparc-oaforum] I don't want free online access: I want free > online access with re-use rights! > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Mitar <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > SH: Many (including me) are working hard to try to ensure that the US > OSTP > > mandate and the Canadian Tri-Agency mandate will be ID/OA too. > > [W]hat about the ambiguity of the word "open access" itself. Do those > "mandates" require "open access" by allowing only free reading or also > reuse and redistribution? "Open access" which does not allow use by > computer but only manual access is not really something we want in > 21st century... tools should have access to publications as well. Tools > should be allowed to analyze them. Tools should be allowed to distribute, > push, pull them... > > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But we don't even have free online access yet... > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But free online access is part of free online access with re-use rights... > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But free online access is already within immediate reach and free online > access with re-use rights is not... > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But free online access will pave the way for free online access with > re-use rights... > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are > near-useless... > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But publishers allowing authors to provide free online access and re-use > rights can immediately be undercut by free-riding rival publishers; > publishers allowing authors to provide free online access alone cannot... > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But publishers will sooner allow authors to provide free online access > than allow them to provide free online access with re-use rights… > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But institutions and funders can sooner mandate free online access than > free online access with re-use rights… > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But all non-subscribing users need free online access; not all or even > most or many users need re-use rights... > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But all authors already want all non-subscribing users to have immediate > free online access; not all or even most or many authors know or care about > re-use rights yet... > I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights! > But free online access is better, even if free online access with re-use > rights is best... > I don't want the better: I want the best! > But the better is already within reach and the best is not... > I don't want the better: I want the best! > > -- > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
