From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:19:35 -0500

But, as I've said here before, if you take that approach and rule out
anything that is not strictly compliant with the BOAI definition, then
you are right away divorcing the OA movement from practically every OA
monograph publishing program that currently exists. Is that a price
you really want to pay for OA purism?   Think about the wider
consequences of what you are recommending here....

Sandy Thatcher



> 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