> "The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of > independent repositories.” > > I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software doesn’t > matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this principle). It’s > about the distribution of *control*. > > We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of > institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control. > This is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should > regard it as precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the > possibility of “ownership” by one party. > > We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to > exploit it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications system.
We used to have a distributed system of email and file storage in universities, mostly under the control of the institution. In recent years, however, a large proportion of universities have purchased loud email and file storage services (mostly from Google and Microsoft). -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
