On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Jan Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "This sort of insistence on One Special License is exactly what is > limiting the adoption of open access." > > Really? Any evidence? I'd welcome it if your definition of open access > found universal acceptance. Would be a great step forward. > > Jan Velterop > While the CC-BY-NOW (Libre OA) partisans keep insisting on having it all, now, thereby playing into the hands of Fools-Gold publishers whilst we still hardly even have Gratis OA (free access online), those who would be more than happy to have Gratis OA at long last are working to mandate it, and to test and optimize mandates for it. Evidence that insisting prematurely on more results in getting less is there, in the two published studies, for those who did not already see the obvious. Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière, Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2014) Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score. <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/> (Submitted) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/ Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan; & Harnad, Stevan (2015) *Open Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness*. Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3 Report. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/ Mandating Green Gratis OA is a clear, tried, tested, feasible strategy to reach 100% Gratis Green OA globally. Do the CC-BY-NOW partisans have a better or faster way, that's been tried, tested and shown to be feasible? If so, we would all be very interested to hear what it is. But don't reply with a journal or publisher that offers CC-BY for a price, Most people are not buying (rightly). We are talking here about the entire refereed-research output of the planet's c. 10,000 universities and research institutions and we need a strategy that *scales*. Stevan Harnad > > > On 22 Jun 2015, at 12:34, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> wrote: > > > as I would define it > > > > And I would define it as *more* free than licenses thatg allow people to > charge money for access to the document. > > > > This sort of insistence on One Special License is exactly what is limiting > the adoption of open access. > > > > -- Stephen > > > > *From:* boai-forum-boun...@ecs.soton.ac.uk [ > mailto:boai-forum-boun...@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <boai-forum-boun...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>] *On Behalf Of *Jan Velterop > *Sent:* June-22-15 7:48 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Cc:* boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk > *Subject:* [BOAI] Re: [GOAL] a chronology about open access > > > > Nice chronology of open access. Unfortunately CC-BY-NC-SA, so itself not > full open access as I would define it (though better than pay-walled, > obviously). > > Jan Velterop > > > On 22 Jun 2015, at 10:32, marie lebert <marie.leb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear all: > > > > https://marielebert.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/openaccesschronology/ > > > > Best regards from France, > > > > Marie > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
