From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:05:46 -0400

As one of the original signatories of Budapest, I feel compelled to
respond to Sandy Thatcher. First of all, the Budapest declaration is
not the end all, or definitive definition of OA; it is only the first
public one signed as a group.

Now, regarding the issue of "venerability by virtue of ancestry" that
Thatcher seems to bring up, let me remind this list that People like
Jim O'Donnell, Michael Strangelove, Stevan Harnad and myself (and
others I forget) were advocating OA from the late '80's. Ann Okerson
was also involved in these early efforts.  In my own case, the
journals Surfaces began publishing in November 1991 (thus a bit after
similar endeavours by O'Donnell and Harnad), and was immediately in
OA. In Montreal, we had been working on finding the ways to launch
this publication since at least 1989 when we received a grant in the
form of equipment from Apple. Psycholoquy appeared earlier, as did
publications launched by Jim O'Donnell. So, if we go into the ancestry
game, some of the OA advocates present at Budapest (Leslie Chan,
Stevan Harnad, yours truly and probably a couple others I am
forgetting now) were indeed pushing this open access line, at least
locally, quite early. But so were others, not present at Budapest, who
practised OA, but have not advocated it in a central way.

I am actually puzzled by Thatcher's reaction. Reviewing the thread in
the messages below, I do not see any reference to Budapest. Why this
outburst? May I also remind Thatcher that the request to have CC-BY as
the preferred mode could be mentioned only after CC licenses were
developed, and that was after Budapest.

In conclusion, original signatories of the Budapest document have
constantly felt involved in what OA means, but, since 2002, OA has
also evolved, if only because we all understand the nature of digital
documents a bit better now than before. That these original
signatories should continue to feel engaged with the very notion of
what OA means is not particularly surprising, but anyone else is
welcome to join in (and I do not think an invitation is needed here as
plenty of people have - rightly so - invited themselves).

PS The Budapest meeting was on December 1st, 2001, not 2002 as
Thatcher claims; the BOAI appeared on February 14th, 2002 as a sequel
to that meeting. Just to keep dates clear and clean.
--

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le mercredi 03 juin 2015 à 20:23 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :

From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:09:52 -0500

Why should the people who met in Budapest in 2002 have a monopoly on
the "correct" definition of open access?  There were some of us
working on open-access projects long before that meeting was held and
developing business models around them. I trace the history of one
such project  for OA monograph publishing in the CIC (Committee on
Institutional Cooperation) in the early 1990s in the lead article in
the April issue of the Journal of Scholarly Publishing. The
appropriate CC license for that initiative (before CC existed) would
have been CC BY-NC-ND.

Sandy Thatcher



> From: "Peter B. Hirtle" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:56:26 +0000
>
> I agree with Klaus Graf that CC BY is the only appropriate license for
> open access.  To argue otherwise only obfuscates the clear, settled
> definition of open access.
>
> But he is wrong about the Creative Commons ND licenses.  First, he
> misquotes Virginia Boucher who in her blog post speaks of the NC
> licenses, not the ND licenses.  And as for the ND license, it is
> perfectly ok to excerpt content from an ND license.  As the legal code
> for that license says, it grants you the right to "Reproduce and Share
> the Licensed Material, in whole or in part." Note the "in part."  That
> means that you can use excerpts or take a figure from an ND-licensed
> work.  You would, however, need to mark the excerpt with the
> attribution and license of the original.  What you can't do is
> distribute any modified versions of an ND-licensed work without
> permission (what the licenses call "adapted material").
>
> Since knowledge advances by building upon and modifying the work of
> our predecessors, an ND license is inappropriate for academic content.
> But it is not as restrictive as Graf suggests.
>
> Peter Hirtle
> Cornell University