LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:11:28 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:25:44 +0000

Well, if the author retains commercial rights, the 'open access' in
question is not BOAI-compliant, and it is about time to stop calling
anything Open Access that is not covered by CC-BY, CC-zero, or
equivalent. Open Access is well-defined in the Budapest Open Access
Initiative and stretching the notion to include all manner of
pseudo-OA causes the problems and anxieties Sandy Thatcher points to.

Jan Velterop


From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:20:32 -0500

There may be an "orphan" problem with OA articles whose authors retain
commercial rights and who become difficult to locate later on.  (Also,
if they are deceased, their heirs will have inherited such rights and
they may well be unaware that they even own such rights.) Indeed, the
problem will likely be greater than for traditional publishing, where
such rights are typically owned by the publisher, which (unless it
goes out of business) is easy to locate.

Sandy Thatcher

ATOM RSS1 RSS2