From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:04:59 -0500

(1) With "immediate, permanent, free, on-line, full-text access (to
refereed research articles)" ("Gratis OA") the following automatically
comes with the territory: local, individual downloading; local,
individual storage; local, individual print-off; local, individual
data-crunching; metadata harvesting and full-text inversion and
indexing and search/navigation by google and other search engines;
linking; universal dissemination of URL. (That's not
'read-on-screen-but-nothing-else-OA'!)

(2) It is the re-use rights that turn Gratis OA into Libre OA that are
somewhat fuzzy and open-ended, with many "flavours in-between" along
the possible re-use continuum. Scholarly/scientific article texts and
their authors are -- unlike music, video and open software and their
creators -- not necessarily amenable to mash-up.

(3) If Libre OA had been the definition of OA, we would not have the
(small, but growing number of) institutional and funder (Green,
Gratis) OA self-archiving mandates that we have so far. Libre OA calls
for much more than Gratis OA and is hence harder to get publishers and
even authors to agree to, hence harder -- perhaps impossible -- for
institutions and funders to mandate.

But once we have Green, Gratis OA mandated universally, there will be
more and more Libre OA, as a natural matter of course, where needed
and wanted by authors. (Already with Green, Gratis OA there is a
solution for the re-useability of figures and tables: the author's
Green OA final draft is not the publisher's proprietary format -- and
XML will make this even more flexible for re-use: All authors want
their figures and tables re-used [with attribution], but not all want
their texts mashed up...)

[The co-drafters of the BOAI definition of OA (of which I was one)
were not prophets or oracles; we tried to express a new idea, for the
first time, and the idea has evolved with time as its implications and
possibilities became clearer. We need to keep it in mind that all
Libre OA is Gratis OA, yet we are far from having universal Gratis OA
as yet, although it's fully within reach through universal Green
Gratis OA mandates. Best not to over-reach till we have first grasped
what is already reachable.]

Stevan Harnad

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:52 PM, David Prosser wrote on LIBLICENSE

> 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, Sandy Thatcher wrote on LIBLICENSE:
>
> > 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