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



> 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