From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 02:18:25 +0000

I can¹t quite tell whether Jean-Claude is disagreeing with my analysis of
the quotation, or agreeing with it and saying that it¹s quite obviously
the only possible conclusion.

But I¹d still like to hear from someone from COAR. If Jean-Claude speaks
for the OA movement as a whole in saying that its purpose is (among other
things) to "(abolish) toll access entirely," then I guess my question
should be an uncontroversial one. As I said, that¹s just fine ‹ but let¹s
not be coy about it.

(By the way, I understand COAR¹s use of the term "open availability" to
include CC-BY license terms or the equivalent, but if that¹s not correct
hopefully someone from COAR will clarify.)

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
[log in to unmask]



On 6/1/15, 6:00 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:47:28 +0000
>
>I do not think Rick Anderson's analysis of the quotation from COAR to
>be correct.
>
>The quoted part is simply a description of the consequences linked
>with delayed availability. One may agree or not agree with this
>description, but, whatever the adopted attitude, one must deal with it
>as a fact. If one disagrees with it, one ought to demonstrate,
>preferably empirically, why he/she disagrees. From my perspective, the
>statement appears common-sensically obvious: if access is delayed
>and/or restricted, then research will be hampered by such constraints
>(at least a few researcher will be slowed down by such constraints).
>And public access to research will also be more difficult. Denying
>this is sophistry.
>
>The quoted COAR statement does not deal with the issue of CC-by.
>Furthermore, no CC licence addresses the issue of embargoes.
>
>Incidentally, Rick Anderson might remember that the Open Access
>movement is about abolishing toll access entirely (plus a few other
>things). This has been publicly the case since at least 2002. So, what
>is new here?
>
>Jean-Claude Guédon
>
>________________________________________
>From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:17:13 +0000
>
>One sentence in COAR¹s Statement Against Elsevier¹s Sharing Policy
>stands out to me in particular:
>
>³Any delay in the open availability of research articles curtails
>scientific progress and places unnecessary constraints on delivering
>the benefits of research back to the public.²
>
>This is quite a remarkable statement ‹ what¹s it saying is that any
>access model that involves anything less than a) immediate and
>universal free access under b) any terms other than CC BY is
>unacceptable. In practice, this would seem to be a call for the
>abolishment of toll access entirely. If so, that¹s fine, but it seems
>like we shouldn¹t be coy about it ‹ can anyone from COAR clarify
>whether this was the intent of the language in question? And if not,
>then was this language included by accident?
>
>---
>Rick Anderson
>Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
>Marriott Library, University of Utah
>[log in to unmask]