From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:16:05 +0000
I really don't think that anybody has argued that 'open access' has a
single, unambiguous meaning across the whole of human endeavour.
What some of us have argued is that 'open access' has a perfectly good
definition within the scholarly communications field and that we
shouldn't turn it into a simple synonym for 'free online access' -
which is apparently what Joe and others wish to do.
David
On 14 Jan 2012, at 00:47, LIBLICENSE wrote:
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:25:26 -0800
>
> I just stumbled on a story on PaidContent, which I clicked on because
> the headline mentioned Open Access. Here is the story:
>
> http://paidcontent.org/article/419-hollywood-lambasts-sky-movies-ruling-but-open-access-gains-favour
>
> Is this story about the open access to research literature? No, it's
> about access to set-top boxes for video in the UK.
>
> People who believe that OA has an unambiguous meaning are denying the facts.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> --
> Joseph J. Esposito
> Portable CEO
> [log in to unmask]
> @josephjesposito
> +Joseph Esposito
