From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:50:39 -0800

All I have said is that the term is ambiguous.  When I use it, I
define it in context.  I use it to mean free, and nothing more.  If
someone would say "Budapest OA" or "Bethesda OA" or "Santa Claus OA"
or whatever, with clear definitions backing these terms up, I would
use them as defined.

The amusing thing about this is that some advocates of OA seem to
believe that there is a consensus where there is none. It really does
point to the insularity of the OA movement.  Perhaps they should all
get out more.

Joe Esposito


On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:20 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> On 14 Jan 2012, at 00:47, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:25:26 -0800
> >
> > I just stumbled on a story on PaidContent, which I clicked on because
> > the headline mentioned Open Access.  Here is the story:
> >
> > http://paidcontent.org/article/419-hollywood-lambasts-sky-movies-ruling-but-open-access-gains-favour
> >
> > Is this story about the open access to research literature?  No, it's
> > about access to set-top boxes for video in the UK.
> >
> > People who believe that OA has an unambiguous meaning are denying the facts.
> >
> > Joe Esposito
> >
> > --
> > Joseph J. Esposito
> > Portable CEO
> > [log in to unmask]
> > @josephjesposito
> > +Joseph Esposito