From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:21:59 +0000

I think it is useful to have a distinction between ‘Open Access’ and
‘Free Access’.  Many of those who want to redefine Open Access
essentially want to expand the definition to include all material that
is freely available online.  If that is the case then ‘Open Access’
becomes useless as term in itself.

My understanding is that ‘Open Access’ was adopted as a term
specifically to distinguish material from the ‘merely’ free to access.
Why not keep it that way?

(Of course, Sandy wasn’t alone in pursuing projects and models that
would support free and open access.  Around the time of the events he
describes in his articles Stevan Harnad, for example, was working on
his ‘Subversive Proposal’ and many journals were experimenting with
open publishing.)

David



On 4 Jun 2015, at 01:23, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:09:52 -0500
>
> Why should the people who met in Budapest in 2002 have a monopoly on
> the "correct" definition of open access?  There were some of us
> working on open-access projects long before that meeting was held and
> developing business models around them. I trace the history of one
> such project  for OA monograph publishing in the CIC (Committee on
> Institutional Cooperation) in the early 1990s in the lead article in
> the April issue of the Journal of Scholarly Publishing. The
> appropriate CC license for that initiative (before CC existed) would
> have been CC BY-NC-ND.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>
>> From: "Peter B. Hirtle" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:56:26 +0000
>>
>> I agree with Klaus Graf that CC BY is the only appropriate license for
>> open access.  To argue otherwise only obfuscates the clear, settled
>> definition of open access.
>>
>> But he is wrong about the Creative Commons ND licenses.  First, he
>> misquotes Virginia Boucher who in her blog post speaks of the NC
>> licenses, not the ND licenses.  And as for the ND license, it is
>> perfectly ok to excerpt content from an ND license.  As the legal code
>> for that license says, it grants you the right to "Reproduce and Share
>> the Licensed Material, in whole or in part." Note the "in part."  That
>> means that you can use excerpts or take a figure from an ND-licensed
>> work.  You would, however, need to mark the excerpt with the
>> attribution and license of the original.  What you can't do is
>> distribute any modified versions of an ND-licensed work without
>> permission (what the licenses call "adapted material").
>>
>> Since knowledge advances by building upon and modifying the work of
>> our predecessors, an ND license is inappropriate for academic content.
>> But it is not as restrictive as Graf suggests.
>>
>> Peter Hirtle
>> Cornell University