From: Michael Carroll <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:39:25 -0500


Whoa, foul Joe.  My post does not demand that the term "open access"
as a whole be limited to the gold road, and no fair reading of this
post or of my many other writings on the topic would support this
interpretation.

My point is limited to those publishers who have switched their
funding model to the supply side (so called "author pays") and who
signal this switch with the term "open access publication" or label
themselves as "open access publishers".

Authors deserve clear labeling so that they know what they are paying
for.  My argument, and the position of OASPA and others, is that the
term "open access publication" should be limited to those journals
that grant the author immediate publication and grants the reading
public the full suite of reuse rights subject only to the attribution
requirement.  The argument is elaborated in the PLoS Biology article
linked in the initial post, but the bottom line is that publishers who
are double dipping behind the "open access publication" label are not
being straight with authors.

If their argument is that they're using a hybrid funding model, then
they should use a term other than "open access publication" to signal
to authors that they are not selling full open access as an option.  I
propose "pseudo open access", as in real fake leather, but if that's
too provocative, I can go along with "limited access" as a more
neutral description.

Best,
Mike

Michael W. Carroll
Professor of Law and Director,
Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
American University, Washington College of Law
Washington, D.C. 20016


-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of LIBLICENSE
Sent: Tue 12/20/2011 11:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program

From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:42:57 -0800

Taylor & Francis's program is open access.  Michael Carroll's
insistence that OA has a special and narrow meaning is one we have
heard on this list many times. But OA has many meanings.  Advocates of
a special kind of OA could have prevented these multiple meanings from
arising had they trademarked a term for the variety they prefer.

In my view, OA means free to read for the end-user.  All the other
stipulations are extraneous.

Joe Esposito