From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:58:17 -0800

David,

I really don't think anyone is being accused of arbitrarily narrowing
the term or of trying to change the substance of the matter.  It is
really a very simple thing: What precisely are you or anyone else
talking about when you say OA?  If you mean BBB OA, then we know where
we are.  If you say simply OA, then we are lost in semantic space.
Trademarks and branding work, to the benefit of all.  You would not,
for example, want to find me posting comments under the brand "David
Prosser."

I think BBB OA is a fine, recognizable and (I hope) unambiguous term.
Let's use it.

BTW, an interesting analogue to this in the U.S. in the early 1990s,
an attempt by medical doctors (through a trade association) to strip
chiropractors of the use of the term "doctor."  That went nowhere.

Joe Esposito


On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:52 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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