In spite of my saying that I would give Stevan the last
word, I'll add one clarification: It was not my intent to
imply that Stevan had not made major tangible contributions
to OA in the form of his many invaluable software and other
projects. Nor was I trying to imply that Stevan had not
made
Prior AmSci Topic Thread:
Free Access vs. Open Access (began August, 2003)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2956.html
OA: NO CUES FROM THE P'S
Stevan Harnad
For those without the time to work through the details, the punch-line is
this:
What
Prior AmSci Topic Thread begins:
Free Access vs. Open Access (August, 2003)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2956.html
In The Spectrum of E-Journal Access Policies: Open to Restricted Access
http://www.escholarlypub.com/digitalkoans/2005/05/13/the-spectrum-of-e
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Stevan Harnad wrote:
There is nothing in the BOAI definition to support the free/open
distinction that some have since attempted to make. In particular, the
BOAI definition states that author/institution self-archiving of the
full-text of an article is one of the two
This scriptural exegesis about free vs. open calls to mind
the (alleged) words of a certain franco-austrian monarchess on the
subject of brioche:
Let Them Eat Cake... (M. Antoinette)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1525.html
What research needs is toll-free access to
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Stevan Harnad wrote [in part]:
[sh] If you have the money to publish *one* article in
[sh] PLoS ($1500) you have more than enough money to set
[sh] up at least one eprint archive. (Kepler OAI
[sh] archivelets might be an even cheaper solution:
[sh]
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Jim Till wrote:
The debate seems to me to be mainly about the 2nd component of the
definitions of open access that are included in the Berlin Declaration,
and in the Bethesda Statement
No, the discussion is about the BOAI definition, the one that coined the
term open
The quintessence of the disagreement between (on one side) Mike Eisen
(PLoS) and Jan Velterop (BMC) and (on the other side) myself (and Peter
Suber, Barbara Kirsop, and Sally Morris) is contained at the end of the
very last sentence of Mike's latest posting:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Michael Eisen
At 02:13 PM 1/3/2004 +, Jan Velterop wrote:
Peter,
You're absolutely correct in your observation that our differences are
minute, in the scheme of things. Nonetheless, I think I disagree with you
that we have Open Access if just the price barrier is lifted.
Jan,
You have this part of
I think an important point has been lost in the various threads on this
topic.
While there is clearly disagreement about what does and should constitute
open access, I think we all agree on two things:
1) universal free access to the peer-reviewed literature, in any form, would
be a wonderful
Jan,
Thanks for your comment.
I've already argued in public that deposit should not be part of the
definition of OA,
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-04-03.htm, and there's
no need to repeat the arguments here. The same arguments apply to
OAI-compliance.
The point is a
Stevan Harnad wrote:
So here is my list, again:
(1) UBIQUITOUS DIRECT ONLINE ACCESS MAKES DERIVATIVE ACCESS SUPERFLUOUS:
Once the full-text is immediately, permanently, and ubiquitously
(i.e., webwide) accessible toll-free, so any user anywhere, any time,
can read the full-text on-screen,
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Lars Aronsson wrote:
[H]ow do we determine if an article is permanently accessible?...
I know but one way to guarantee permanent access, and that is to allow
free copying and republishing.
Webwide toll-free copying, downloading, and storing of self-archived articles
is
Peter,
You're absolutely correct in your observation that our differences are
minute, in the scheme of things. Nonetheless, I think I disagree with
you that we have Open Access if just the price barrier is lifted. I
don't think it's a question of archiving and OAI-compliance (or other
sure-fire
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Barbara Kirsop wrote [in part, on the
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access]:
[bk] The present discussions on the AmSci forum on whether
[bk] 'open' is the same as/different from 'free' access and
[bk] comparing this with the need to feed the starving now
[bk] or wait a bit
,
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Barbara Kirsop
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: 1/2/04 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
Dear All,
I have sympathised with Stevan's New Year message on the
misunderstandings and digressions regarding
Sally,
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your helpful post.
More below.
At 09:02 AM 12/31/2003 +0100, Sally Morris wrote:
[Omitting short descriptions of OA journals and OA archives.]
In neither case is any of the following a sine qua non, though they
appear to be 'articles of
Dear All,
I have sympathised with Stevan's New Year message on the
misunderstandings and digressions regarding acceptance of OA (see
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org). We faced all these
uncertainties at the Bangalore workshop last year and developed a FAQ
similar to Stevan's for
vs. Open Access
Sally,
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your helpful post.
More below.
At 09:02 AM 12/31/2003 +0100, Sally Morris wrote:
[Omitting short descriptions of OA journals and OA archives.]
In neither case is any of the following a sine qua non, though they
appear
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Jan Velterop wrote:
What is Open Access worth if an article is 'open' but not easily
universally accessible? For that we need OAI-compliance.
What is it worth without OAI? Infinitely more than if access is blocked
by tolls (as most of it still is today).
(But of course
At 03:16 PM 12/31/2003 +, Stevan Harnad wrote:
The discussion of the Free/Open Access distinction appears to
be growing. I see that Peter Suber has posted a reply to the
SOAF list, which I will re-post to the Amsci Forum in a moment
so I can reply to it on both lists after I have replied to
Stevan-
You say:
Am I missing something? It seems to me that we have all the access and
use we could possibly want here, without going so far as to stipulate what
sort of velum it should appear on before declaring the access truly open!
Yes, you are missing something. You seem intent on
-Original Message-
From: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:44:29 +
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
All would-be users need to be able to read, download, store,
print-off
In the following, I respond to multiple postings: (a) one by Peter Suber,
(b) three by Mike Eisen, and (c) one by Seth Johnson.
Happy New Year to All! S.H.
--
(a) Peter Suber wrote:
Self-archiving is a true open-access strategy, not merely a free-access
strategy. Authors
-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
~On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Michael Eisen wrote:
sh Perhaps all Sally means here is that she thinks it would be more
useful
sh if open-access (gold) journals did not use
...@lbl.gov
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
Stevan,
First, for the sake of clarity, can we just agree that, whatever relative
value you place on the two, free access and open access
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
Stevan,
First, for the sake of clarity, can we just agree that, whatever relative
value you place on the two, free access and open access
Sally Morris wrote:
The core, essential feature is free, unrestricted access (to primary
research articles) for everyone. This can take 2 forms:
1)In Stevan's term, 'self-archiving' - posting, generally
by authors or institutions, of preprints, postprints or both, on
The discussion of the Free/Open Access distinction appears to
be growing. I see that Peter Suber has posted a reply to the
SOAF list, which I will re-post to the Amsci Forum in a moment
so I can reply to it on both lists after I have replied to
Mike Eisen (in prep.!).
But before I reply I would
I agree with Mike.
Here's how I've put it e.g. in
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/acrl.htm. There are two important
kinds of access barriers: price barriers and permission barriers. Free
online access removes price barriers. Open access removes both price and
permission barriers.
Do
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Michael Eisen wrote:
First, for the sake of clarity, can we just agree that, whatever relative
value you place on the two, free access and open access are not equivalent
and that it does no one any good to confuse the two.
We can agree for the sake of clarity that an
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Sally Morris wrote:
I think it is perfectly reasonable (and in no way a denial of Open Access)
for a publisher to wish to retain the right to sell derivative copies of a
work, even if in its original form it is made freely available.
This is indeed perfectly reasonable
Perhaps all Sally means here is that she thinks it would be more useful
if open-access (gold) journals did not use the creative-commons
license, and instead, apart from providing immediate, permanent,
toll-free, non-gerrymandered, online access to the full-text, the journal
required *exclusive*
: Monday, December 29, 2003 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
Perhaps all Sally means here is that she thinks it would be more useful
if open-access (gold) journals did not use the creative-commons
license, and instead, apart from providing immediate, permanent,
toll-free, non
to reuse and
republish text is a critical part of making optimal use of the scientific
literature. PLoS chose the creative commons license in order to encourage
creative reuse of the content we publish.
Mike,
In this discussion thread
Free Access Vs. Open Access
http
Aronsson l...@aronsson.se
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
Stevan Harnad wrote:
And what is meant by redistribute when the text is already distributed
all over the planet
/291/5512/2318b
Mike and I are agreed on this. We do disagree, however, on the free/open
distinction (which I consider completely spurious):
Free Access vs. Open Access
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2956.html
But there is also an important logical point which Mike
I've changed the subject thread because the focus seems to have returned to
the free vs open access distinction, which I will argue is both spurious and
a retardant on progress toward free/open access.
The point is extremely simple. According to Mike Eisen, my definition
of open access as
FREE,
Stevan Harnad wrote:
And what is meant by redistribute when the text is already distributed
all over the planet on the web, and freely available to anyone who may
wish to find, search, read, download, process computationally online or
offline, and print off anywhere in the world, any time?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Stevan Harnad wrote:
sh And what is meant by redistribute when the text is already distributed
sh all over the planet on the web, and freely available to anyone who may
sh wish to find, search, read, download, process computationally online or
sh
, but free AND open or at the very least free AS A MOVE
TOWARDS open.
Jan
-Original Message-
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: 15 December 2003 03:23
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
I've
I think Jan Velterop might have misinterpreted the content of the Free
Access vs. Open Access thread. This thread is not in fact opposing two
rival forms of access. It is questioning the coherence and content of
the open vs. free access distinction itself.
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Jan Velterop wrote
[Forwarded from a separate discussion thread on the Humanist list
concerning open access to monographs. Redirected here because it
now focusses on the free vs. open distinction. -- SH]
If online material is 'open' in the sense of 'free' that is of course a
great step forward, but if
Sorry, Stevan, your response is too long to read fully.
This is the 'offending' sentence: ...being able to do *everything* one
could do with paper... That's simply not enough. 'Opening the curtains' is
fine if you want to shed light, but half the time it's night.
Our advice to authors should be:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:
Our advice to authors should be:
1. Publish in open access journals when possible;
2. If not possible, self-archive in OAI-compliant repositories in a
machine-readable format (such as XML);
3. Should that not be possible either, self-archive in
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Christopher Warnock wrote:
Stevan,
I have read your comments with regard to free access vs. open access
and I am curious as to your thoughts regarding copyrights and open
access and how it relates to ebrary, if at all.
As a matter of interest/ potential discussion
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Christopher Warnock wrote:
The ebrary [http://www.ebrary.com/] controls over the documents
range from very restrictive access models to completely open access
models incorporating any variation of viewing, copying, printing or
downloading.
That seems fine, and a
Stevan,
I have read your comments with regard to free access vs. open access
and I am curious as to your thoughts regarding copyrights and open
access and how it relates to ebrary, if at all.
As a matter of interest/ potential discussion, ebrary has created
http://librarycenter.ebrary.com
Barry Mahon writes
The actual technical aspects of the database loading may be
irrelevant but there is an important corollorary - secondary
information services (abstracting and indexing) play an increasingly
important role as the primary literature becomes more and more
diffused in the
Matthew Cockerill writes
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The
* freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
* (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
* this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help
: Steve Hitchcock sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
This debate between Stevan Harnad and Matthew Cockerill about what
constitutes 'open access' appears to resolve
This debate between Stevan Harnad and Matthew Cockerill about what
constitutes 'open access' appears to resolve to whether or not a full-text
document has a machine interface to the full text, for datamining purposes,
as well as a user interface. In the absence of evidence of gerrymandered
free
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Matthew Cockerill wrote:
sh The use one makes of those full texts is to read them,
shprint them off, quote/comment them, cite them, and use
shtheir *contents* in further research, building on them.
shWhat is re-use? And what is redistribution
53 matches
Mail list logo
