From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:23:39 +0100

I apologise to all readers of the list and to the moderator. The first
sentence is as I sent it but somehow I managed to shift the word "libre"
into it. I meant to write: "isn't there a basic difference here?".

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Watkinson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 23 April 2013 09:04
To: 'LibLicense-L Discussion Forum'
Subject: RE: Free and open access

David

Isn't there a basic difference her libre? As you rightly say subscription
journals are subscription journals to librarians, authors and users whether
or not the business model for an individual journal incorporated other
sources of income. In the world of open access, funders certainly
distinguish between different "flavours" of OA. I do not think gratis and
libre really work as distinguishing terms (gold and platinum) because the
different creative commons licenses distinguish a number of shades of libre.
Obviously publishers do have a view because some of these licenses cut out
some forms of income. In the subscription world no sources of income were
cut out - it all depended on whether anyone wanted to pay page charges, for
advertising or for reprints.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:20:52 +0100

I'm afraid that Joe has rather missed the point.  Of course all businesses
need to look at their revenues streams.  And of course, although this point
is sometimes ignored, most 'subscription' journals have existed on a mixture
of revenue streams for many, many decades (albeit with subscriptions often
being the major revenue component).

The question is not whether publishers need to look at granularity when
writing their business plans - of course they do.  It was whether or not
when talking about different types of OA we need a rainbow of colours to
describe the different business models.  I think no, others disagree.

David