From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:32:36 +0000
Indeed, Peter has written, eloquently and sensibly as ever, on this.
In his August 2008 newsletter he wrote:
"We could fight the tide of usage and try to make "OA" refer to
nothing but BBB [Budapest, Berlin, Bethesda] OA again. But that's
unwinnable."
Of course he's right, regrettably. The distinction between BBB OA and
'read-on-screen-but-nothing-else-OA' (and all the flavours in-between)
is a useful and important one and it a pity that we are losing it,
with OA and 'free access' becoming synonyms in many people's minds.
I suppose if I'm honest, what irks me rather is the implication that
those of us who do want to stick to the BBB definition are somehow
'arbitrarily' limiting or 'narrowing' the term. (And that is, after
all, how this thread started.) The BBB definitions were the original
definitions of 'open access' in a scholarly communications context -
it was not a term of art used much before the Budapest definition.
And the Budapest definition was the 'Budapest Open Access Initiative'
not the 'Budapest Free Access Initiative' for a reason - the use and
re-use of material was considered important.
But as ever in English usage win and as Peter says we can't beat the
tide of usage. That won't, however, stop me doing my Cnut
impersonation from time to time.
David Prosser
On 18 Jan 2012, at 21:42, LIBLICENSE wrote:
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:58:49 -0600
>
> Well, the "others" would have to include Peter Suber, who issues the
> SPARC Open Access Newsletter and has devoted time in some issues to
> distinguishing "libre" from "gratis" OA. If there were only one
> meaning of open access, it would make no sense for Peter to have
> engaged in these discussions. I think the OA movement is shooting
> itself in the foot by trying arbitrarily to restrict the meaning to
> just "libre" OA because, among other reasons, that approach will
> effectively put almost all of what we now call OA book publishing
> beyond the pale and divorce it from the movement. Does it make any
> sense to encourage such division in the movement?
>
> Sandy Thatcher
|
