[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles
What does this prove, pray? A search in Google Scholar for Open Access and God yields 36,300 results, and Open Access and the devil 10,600 results. I share Peter M-R's unhappiness with the term 'libre OA', though maybe for different reasons. It is tautological: true OA (as we all – including Harnad – envisioned as our goal in the BOAI) is 'libre' already. In French that seems to be clear: Open Access is usually translated as Accès libre. What would 'libre OA' be in French? Accès libre libre? Having a 'first things first' approach with 'green' OA to reaching the OA goal is a legitimate stance to take (whether or not I or anybody else agrees with the idea); arbitrarily and unilaterally changing the goalposts – or the definition of what OA should be – along the way is not. Jan Velterop On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:09, Hélène.Bosc wrote: Peter, you wrote : I am less than happy with the term libre which does not correspond to usage elsewhere and is at best confusing In French we say Les absents ont toujours tort (Absent people are always wrong) . It seems that in April 2008, you were not present in the OA movement (Suber's and Harnad's definition!!!) and specially in the American Scientist discussions when Libre and Gratis appeared. Please see : http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind08L=american-scientist-open-access-forumO=DF=lP=37608 A research with Google Scholar with Open Access gives the following results: http://bit.ly/OAsuberGS 3240 http://bit.ly/OAharnadGS 3740 http://bit.ly/OAmurrayrustGS 716 The print of these 6980 Open Access is too strong today, in every mind and you cannot resist to what has been written about Open Access during all these past years by two individuals , as you say. (Quoted from one of your recent messages : It is now left to one (SH) or possibly two (PS) individuals to state what OA is. ) Hélène Bosc Open Access to Scientific Communication http://open-access.infodocs.eu/ - Original Message - From: Peter Murray-Rust To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:29 PM Subject: [GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: JV: the definition of OA... is being changed... instead of any OA achievements being measured against the goal that has been set The 2002 BOAI definition was refined in 2008 to name its two constituents: http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre This statement is simply wrong. The linked resource is written by Peter Suber alone. He uses the pronoun I throughout much of the mail. I applaud his efforts to describe the situation. (I am less than happy with the term libre which does not correspond to usage elsewhere and is at best confusing. But since it can apparently mean almost removal of any condition, no matter how minor, it has very limited use). At the end Peter Suber makes it clear he is NOT refining BOAI. He says (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html ) I'm [PS] not proposing a change in the BBB definition, and I haven't retreated an inch in my support for it. I'm simply proposing vocabulary to help us talk unambiguously about two species of free online access. [PMR's emphasis] P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ 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] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Hélène.Bosc hbosc-tcher...@orange.frwrote: ** Peter, you wrote : I am less than happy with the term libre which does not correspond to usage elsewhere and is at best confusing In French we say Les absents ont toujours tort (Absent people are always wrong) . I am sorry that the discussion seems to have descended to personalities - this seems to be somewhat common on this list. I will reply briefly and hope to end there. I am not an ignorant newcomer to OA. My first posting to this list was in 1998 http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0096.html It seems that in April 2008, you were not present in the OA movement (Suber's and Harnad's definition!!!) I was not a regular contributor to this list but I was active in OA, for example, invited to contribute to a special issue of Serials Review in 2008 on Open Access http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00987913084X (and before I am criticized for not being Open, yes - I put it in the Cambridge DSpace repository - I also put it on Nature Precedings). and specially in the American Scientist discussions when Libre and Gratigratis and libres appeared. Please see : http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind08L=american-scientist-open-access-forumO=DF=lP=37608 The mail you reference is NOT about gratis and libre , it is about weak OA and strong OA. I followed that discussion very closely, mainly from Peter Suber's blog. I did not comment on this mailing list. weak and strong were discarded in favour of gratis and libre. There is, as far as I know, nor formal community page (as opposed to mail list discussion) about gratis and libre other than http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm (Peter Suber alone) from which I quote: I've decided to use the term gratis OA for the removal of price barriers alone and libre OA for the removal of price and at least some permission barriers. The new terms allow us to speak unambiguously about these two species of free online access. The I here is Peter Suber. [BTW I should make it clear that I find PS's writing very clear.] My point is and was that the terms libre and gratis are proposed by 1-2 individuals. Nothing wrong with that but there is no formal community endorsement or critique available in static form. And since definitions seem to be highly volatile on this list and in OA generally that is a pity IMO. A research with Google Scholar with Open Access gives the following results: http://bit.ly/OAsuberGS *3240* http://bit.ly/OAharnadGS *3740* http://bit.ly/OAmurrayrustGS *716* These are highly imprecise searches and are not really worth discussing. Many of the MurrayRust references are not to me and many of mine are purely scientific. So take them out and reduce me to about 25 milliHarnads if you think it's useful. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles
So the definition of Open Access as formulated in the BOAI is now no more than 'mortal improvisation', according to Harnad. What's happening is that for reasons of expediency, the definition of OA (which didn't represent 'Holy Writ', but an ambitious goal, for the benefit of science) is being changed, quite arbitrarily, instead of any OA achievements being measured against the goal that has been set. The fact that Open Access as defined in the BOAI seems practically not achievable with the so-called 'green' road is no doubt the underlying reason. The intellectually honest way to deal with that is not to change the definition, but to admit that whilst what has been, and can be, achieved with self-archiving is a most important step towards the ultimate goal of Open Access, the goal is not quite achievable that way. The difficulty for Harnad c.s. is of course to admit that the 'gold' route to OA clearly *can* comply with Open Access as defined in the BOAI. Neither 'gold' nor 'green' have achieved full Open Access yet, that's clear. But the Open Access of 'gold' is according to the BOAI definition, and most of the open access of 'green' isn't. Changing the definition – the goal – only serves to promote confusion and ambiguity. Tampering with the definition makes the term Open Access so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Anybody can now call just about any publishing or repository offering Open Access, removing all clarity of purpose contained in the original definition. The agenda seems to have changed from striving for Open Access in any way possible, to undermining, come what may, the Open Access that can be brought by the 'gold' route. A very sad state of affairs. Jan Velterop On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:00, Stevan Harnad wrote: On 2012-08-28, at 4:26 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: Warning: I shall get shouted down for this post. On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: OA means free online access. When and where and by whom was this decided? It is incompatible with the BBB definitions. One of the problems of Open Access as a movement is that the terms used (in the period after BBB) are so poorly defined as to be essentially meaningless - Humpty-Dumpty ( When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.). Peter, you will not get shouted down -- but it would be a great help if you were to listen, because you have asked and been given this information now countless times. There have been updates of the BBB definition of OA, which was drafted in early days and has since seen a decade of developments not envisioned or anticipated in 2002: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre 1. Free online access is Gratis OA. 2. Free online access plus (some) re-use rights is Libre OA. 3. Gratis OA is a necessary condition for Libre OA. 4. Over sixty percent of journals already endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green Gratis OA. 5. In addition, about 40% more endorse Green Gratis OA after an embargo of 6-12 months. 6. Global Gratis Green OA is within reach of Green OA mandates (ID/OA + Almost-OA Button) 7. Libre OA is not within reach: publishers must be paid extra for it, in the form of Libre Gold OA fees, over and above the subscription fees already being paid by institutions worldwide. 8. All researchers, in all disciplines, want and need access to all refereed research, not just the journals their institutions can afford to subscribe to, i.e., Gratis OA. 9. Not all researchers, in all disciplines, want and need to provide re-use rights (Libre OA). 10. Hence Green Gratis OA is the overwhelmingly first and foremost priority. 11. Once Green Gratis OA is globally mandated by institutions and funders, Libre OA (and Gold OA) will follow as a natural matter of course. 12. Your field, chemistry, would greatly benefit from Libre OA, but it is also the field whose publishers are the most dead-set against OA, whether Gratis or Libre. 13. Your field, chemistry, like all other fields, would also greatly benefit from Gratis OA, so all researchers have access to all refereed research. 14. First things first. 15. The reason you get shouted down is that you keep putting the particular additional needs of your discipline ahead of the generic access needs of all disciplines. 16. The A in OA stands for access; the OA movement is not the Open License movement (though it will help the OL movement along). (Yes, Jan Velterop, for reasons of his own, also much debated in this Forum, has relentlessly insisted that substantive, strategic and pragmatic matters can somehow be settled by treating the BBB definition as if it had been Holy Writ rather than Mortal Improvisation, and as if nothing had been learned since 2002. Yes, that is at best BBB pedantry, and at
[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles
I will comment on JV and then SH On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: So the definition of Open Access as formulated in the BOAI is now no more than 'mortal improvisation', according to Harnad. What's happening is that for reasons of expediency, the definition of OA (which didn't represent 'Holy Writ', but an ambitious goal, for the benefit of science) is being changed, quite arbitrarily, instead of any OA achievements being measured against the goal that has been set. I agree with this. The definitions have been continually and continuously changed over the last 10 years since BOAI with *no public process*. It is now left to one (SH) or possibly two (PS) individuals to state what OA is. This has led to the totally emasculated definition of Open Access which we have just seen. Changing the definition – the goal – only serves to promote confusion and ambiguity. Tampering with the definition makes the term Open Access so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Yes. Open Access is now meaningless. It means as much as healthy, democracy or freedom. Anybody can now call just about any publishing or repository offering Open Access, removing all clarity of purpose contained in the original definition. Yes. On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:00, Stevan Harnad wrote: On 2012-08-28, at 4:26 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: Warning: I shall get shouted down for this post. On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: OA means free online access. When and where and by whom was this decided? It is incompatible with the BBB definitions. One of the problems of Open Access as a movement is that the terms used (in the period after BBB) are so poorly defined as to be essentially meaningless - Humpty-Dumpty ( When *I* use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.). Peter, you will not get shouted down -- but it would be a great help if you were to listen, because you have asked and been given this information now countless times. I do listen. I have been asking several times for definitions of Open Access. I get no answers but am flooded with political slogans such as Reach for the Reachable and Grasp for the Graspable. I am told ex cathedra that defining OA must wait until 100% Green access has been achieved. This is not constructive argued debate - in many cases it is proof-by-repeated-assertion, which at least in science is not acceptable as a form of discourse unless supported by evidence. Many of your (SH) answers are opinions without evidence stated as fact. There have been updates of the BBB definition of OA, which was drafted in early days and has since seen a decade of developments not envisioned or anticipated in 2002: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre I have read this carefully several times - I *do* listen. It is one person's (PS) analysis of the situation, not an agreed communal view. It may be than many of the community agree it, but it is still one person's view. It is not an update of the BBB definition - this cannot be unilaterally decided by one-and-a-half signatories on a rolling basis. If there were a community process rather than individual pronouncements I would probably feel more comfortable. I am criticized on this list for being ignorant, sterile, obstructive, stupid. If I get clear definitive answers to these questions I will stop asking. I would like community agreed answers, not the SH answer-of-the-day. Definitions are critically important as people are paying for Open Access and arguing politically for it and there is no public agreement as to what it is. Green and Gold are not definitions of the state of Open Access, they are - at best - definitions of a process. 1. Free online access is Gratis OA. Where is free online access defined? It is not a simple concept. (a) is it permanent or temporary? (b) how is it recognised? (c) is it a property of (i) a document or (ii) a location or (iii) a process? Or some combination? 2. Free online access plus (some) re-use rights is Libre OA. (i) What are the some re-use rights? (ii) Where are they listed and defined? (iii) How are they recognised? Although I am personally saddened by libreOA being different from libre in software and libre for data (as in the Panton Principles) I might be prepared to work with libreOA if I knew what it was. For example is permission to deposit in a University repository could be claimed as a re-use right, in which case all Green University OA was by definition libre. 3. Gratis OA is a necessary condition for Libre OA. I would agree, although without operational definitions I cannot be sure 4. 5. Political and irrelevant to a definition. .6. Global Gratis Green OA is within reach of Green OA mandates (ID/OA + Almost-OA Button) We now have another concept Almost OA which again is not defined. And I assume that
[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles
On 2012-08-29, at 3:35 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: I have been asking several times for definitions of Open Access. I get no answers but am flooded with political slogans… Gratis OA: Free online access Libre OA: Free online access + various re-use rights (there is no agreement on which ones, but maybe up to and including CC-BY) It is one person's (PS) analysis of the situation, not an agreed communal view. It may be that many of the community agree it, but it is still one person's view. Peter Suber has been the principal spokesman, and was the principal drafter of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), and is now the principal drafter of the 10-year revision. Many of the community agree. Peter Suber is extremely dedicated to reaching a consensus. But a consensus in human affairs almost never means complete unanimity. It would be helpful, though, if dissenting voices were to address matters of substance, rather than matters of definition. I think what you (Peter Murray-Rust) are saying is that for the needs of your field, Gratis OA is not enough: You need Libre OA, with particular re-use rights (let's say CC-BY). That's fine. It is not the definition of Gratis and Libre OA that is at fault for the fact that we don't yet have Libre OA for your field: what is at fault is the fact that we don't yet have Libre OA for your field. It is not a political slogan to say that Gratis OA is much easier to reach than Libre OA, and that Green OA mandates are a way to reach it. It is simply a practical reality. It is not an update of the BBB definition - this cannot be unilaterally decided by one-and-a-half signatories on a rolling basis. If there were a community process rather than individual pronouncements I would probably feel more comfortable. To repeat, tilting at a definition (BBB is roughly equivalent to Libre OA) is not going to bring us any more OA. More likely, it will give opponents of OA -- as well as those for whom free online access is not enough -- the chance to say that 'OA' mandates do not generate 'OA'. A rather hollow gain from tilting at a definition instead of focusing on viable, practical ways to generate either (1) free online access or (2) free online access + various re-use rights. Green and Gold are not definitions of the state of Open Access, they are - at best - definitions of a process. Correct (and I don't think anyone has said otherwise). Where is free online access defined? It is not a simple concept. (a) is it permanent or temporary? Permanent. free, immediate, permanent online access to the full text of refereed research articles for anyone, webwide: http://bit.ly/2380-refs (b) how is it recognized? I don't understand the question. If you can access it for free on the web, it's freely accessible to you now. (Permanent is a tall order: Please consult David Hume on problem of induction http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/) (c) is it a property of (i) a document Yes or (ii) a location Yes or (iii) a process? Well, you have to get it there somehow Or some combination? See above (i) What are the some re-use rights? Very far from being universally agreed. For some (like yourself, I think) these include data-minability by machine, and the right to re-publish (derivative works). For others it is CC-BY. Libre OA potentially covers the entire CC spectrum. (ii) Where are they listed and defined? Please see the Creative Commons site: http://creativecommons.org The OA movement is not the same thing as the Open License movement, though Open License is one way to characterize Libre OA. It is not that Libre OA lacks a definition, but that there are a huge panoply of potential re-uses, hence of re-use rights. The important practical thing is, again, not a matter of definition. It depends on what users need and what creators want to provide -- and, most important of all, how to ensure that it is indeed provided. (iii) How are they recognized? Not my speciality, but I believe the CC people are working to make clear licenses machine- as well as human-readable. [If] permission to deposit in a University repository could be claimed as a re-use right, in which case all Green University OA was by definition libre. Some think there needs to be a license to access any item on the web. If so, trillions of Web items that are freely accessed daily are in need of licenses. Yes, logically speaking, free online access could be defined as a re-use right. Do you think that would clarify matters? Do you think it would help generate (1) more free online access, or (2) more free online access + various other re-use rights? (Re-use rights could also be re-defined as various free online use rights: Do you think that would help anything?) 3. Gratis OA is a necessary condition for Libre OA. I would agree, although without operational definitions I cannot be sure I'm grateful for that. (On
[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles
Thank you for this reply. It contains some answers to some of the questions. I shall return with comments. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles
JV: the definition of OA... is being changed... instead of any OA achievements being measured against the goal that has been set The 2002 BOAI definition was refined in 2008 to name its two constituents: http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre For a measure of relative growth of Green OA and Gold OA, Gratis and Libre, see the following. Almost all the Green OA to date and most of the Gold OA is Gratis OA rather than Libre OA: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/905-Finch-Fiasco-in-Figures.html JV: whilst what has been, and can be, achieved with self-archiving is a most important step towards the ultimate goal of Open Access, the goal is not quite achievable that way Gratis OA can be achieved directly via Gratis Green OA mandates. Libre OA and Gold OA cannot be achieved directly via Gratis Green OA mandates, but are very likely to follow after we have universal Gratis Green OA mandates. JV: the Open Access of 'gold' is according to the BOAI definition, and most of the open access of 'green' isn't Almost all the Green OA to date and most of the Gold OA is Gratis OA rather than Libre OA. JV: Anybody can now call just about any publishing or repository offering Open Access No, one can call it Gratis OA if it is free online access and Libre OA if it is free online access plus various re-use rights. Stevan Harnad___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles
Forgive me, but isn't this a bit like trying to define 'freedom' according to strict criteria? Like it or not, 'open access' has become a widely used term which, at its most basic, does indeed just mean free online access to scholarly content. Further refinements are all very well, but are not going to change the way that most people understand and use the term. Does that actually matter? I don't think so! Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk _ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 29 August 2012 16:36 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: jisc-repositories Subject: [GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles On 2012-08-29, at 3:35 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: I have been asking several times for definitions of Open Access. I get no answers but am flooded with political slogans. Gratis OA: Free online access Libre OA: Free online access + various re-use rights (there is no agreement on which ones, but maybe up to and including CC-BY) It is one person's (PS) analysis of the situation, not an agreed communal view. It may be that many of the community agree it, but it is still one person's view. Peter Suber has been the principal spokesman, and was the principal drafter of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), and is now the principal drafter of the 10-year revision. Many of the community agree. Peter Suber is extremely dedicated to reaching a consensus. But a consensus in human affairs almost never means complete unanimity. It would be helpful, though, if dissenting voices were to address matters of substance, rather than matters of definition. I think what you (Peter Murray-Rust) are saying is that for the needs of your field, Gratis OA is not enough: You need Libre OA, with particular re-use rights (let's say CC-BY). That's fine. It is not the definition of Gratis and Libre OA that is at fault for the fact that we don't yet have Libre OA for your field: what is at fault is the fact that we don't yet have Libre OA for your field. It is not a political slogan to say that Gratis OA is much easier to reach than Libre OA, and that Green OA mandates are a way to reach it. It is simply a practical reality. It is not an update of the BBB definition - this cannot be unilaterally decided by one-and-a-half signatories on a rolling basis. If there were a community process rather than individual pronouncements I would probably feel more comfortable. To repeat, tilting at a definition (BBB is roughly equivalent to Libre OA) is not going to bring us any more OA. More likely, it will give opponents of OA -- as well as those for whom free online access is not enough -- the chance to say that 'OA' mandates do not generate 'OA'. A rather hollow gain from tilting at a definition instead of focusing on viable, practical ways to generate either (1) free online access or (2) free online access + various re-use rights. Green and Gold are not definitions of the state of Open Access, they are - at best - definitions of a process. Correct (and I don't think anyone has said otherwise). Where is free online access defined? It is not a simple concept. (a) is it permanent or temporary? Permanent. free, immediate, permanent online access to the full text of refereed research articles for anyone, webwide: http://bit.ly/2380-refs (b) how is it recognized? I don't understand the question. If you can access it for free on the web, it's freely accessible to you now. (Permanent is a tall order: Please consult David Hume on problem of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/ induction) (c) is it a property of (i) a document Yes or (ii) a location Yes or (iii) a process? Well, you have to get it there somehow Or some combination? See above (i) What are the some re-use rights? Very far from being universally agreed. For some (like yourself, I think) these include data-minability by machine, and the right to re-publish (derivative works). For others it is CC-BY. Libre OA potentially covers the entire CC spectrum. (ii) Where are they listed and defined? Please see the Creative Commons site: http://creativecommons.org The OA movement is not the same thing as the Open License movement, though Open License is one way to characterize Libre OA. It is not that Libre OA lacks a definition, but that there are a huge panoply of potential re-uses, hence of re-use rights. The important practical thing is, again, not a matter of definition. It depends on what users need and what creators want to provide -- and, most important of all, how to ensure that it is indeed provided. (iii) How are they recognized? Not my speciality, but I believe the CC people are working to make clear licenses
[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.ukwrote: JV: the definition of OA... is being changed... instead of any OA achievements being measured against the goal that has been set The 2002 BOAI definition was refined in 2008 to name its two constituents: http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre This statement is simply wrong. The linked resource is written by Peter Suber alone. He uses the pronoun I throughout much of the mail. I applaud his efforts to describe the situation. (I am less than happy with the term libre which does not correspond to usage elsewhere and is at best confusing. But since it can apparently mean almost removal of any condition, no matter how minor, it has very limited use). At the end Peter Suber makes it clear he is NOT refining BOAI. He says ( http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html) *I'm [PS] not proposing a change in the BBB definition*, and I haven't retreated an inch in my support for it. I'm simply proposing vocabulary to help us talk unambiguously about two species of free online access. [PMR's emphasis] P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
