From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 00:24:40 -0500

I was reacting to Peter Hirtle's claim about a "clear, settled
definition of open access" and questioning why we should accept the
BOIA as a definitive statement of what OA means, as some people seem
to do.

As for earlier efforts, again those that Jean-Claude mentions all
concerned journals, not monographs. And the thinking that led up to
the CIC proposal actually got its start a decade or so earlier.

For those earlier OA journal initiatives he mentions, though, I would
ask whether they were operated under what CC later came to define as
the CC BY approach. Did they all anticipate BOIA in that respect, or
did they take a different approach?  Did they attempt to spell out
explicitly for their readers exactly what rights they has for reuse?

Sandy Thatcher



> 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