From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:59:51 -0500

The difference, of course, was that all of those other efforts were
focused solely on journal publishing, David, and that's the problem.
The CC BY definition does not work so well for monograph publishing,
and that is one reason why I drafted the AAUP's Statement on Open
Access, released in July 2007, viz., to expand the conversation beyond
STM journal publishing.  If the OA community doesn't care about
anything other than journal publishing, then it may well be that CC BY
would suffice.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:21:59 +0000
>
> I think it is useful to have a distinction between 'Open Access' and
> 'Free Access'.  Many of those who want to redefine Open Access
> essentially want to expand the definition to include all material that
> is freely available online.  If that is the case then 'Open Access'
> becomes useless as term in itself.
>
> My understanding is that 'Open Access' was adopted as a term
> specifically to distinguish material from the 'merely' free to access.
> Why not keep it that way?
>
> (Of course, Sandy wasn't alone in pursuing projects and models that
> would support free and open access.  Around the time of the events he
> describes in his articles Stevan Harnad, for example, was working on
> his 'Subversive Proposal' and many journals were experimenting with
> open publishing.)
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 4 Jun 2015, at 01:23, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  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