LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:43:45 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
From: "Andrew A. Adams" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:41:01 +0900

Jan,

There are reasons for requiring green deposit even where an article is
already OA on the journal. First, that canchange - one of my articles was
published in a new Journal (Vol 2(2)) which a couple of years later was sold
by bepress to iley and became closed - very annoyingly to me on two grounds -
I was not informed of the change and the original URL stopped working. Second
is the very practical measure that it is easy for an institution to check
whether every article deposited has a full text paper in the repository
(simply by checking that a suitable document is there - the fact that it
would be possible for an author to upload a blank document requires an
assumption of malfeasance far beyond the likelihood of it ever happening -
the chances that sooner or later someone would spot and report such an upload
are so high that very few would be foolish enough to do this). Compare this
to checking (regularly because of my first point) that the URL (which is more
likely to a web page rather than adeep link tothedocument) gives open access,
which takes a ridiculous amount of work. Institutions almost universally
already collect for very good reasons the meta-data of their researchers'
output. Adding the requirement to submit the full text of the accepted
version is a very small amount of extra work done in a scalable manner.
Everything else does not properly scale.

On the point about libre OA and gratis OA, I'm afraid you are wrong about
open in English meaning the same as libre. Open has exactly the same problems
as "free" in terms of being overloaded. I'm working on a paper at the moment
on this issue, but the simple pointer to this is the use of the word "open"
in the two phrases:

Open Educational Resources (OERs), in which open generally means "libre"

Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs), in which open generally means "gratis"

None of the main MOOC platforms have libre licensing of the content, not even
the non-profit ones. MIT's OpenCourseWare (not the first or the only OER
resource but a major instance of it) specifically provides for a CC-BY-NC
license.

Professor Andrew A Adams
[log in to unmask]
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan

ATOM RSS1 RSS2