From: Richard Feinman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:27:11 -0500

...a science cooperative, not for profit. The software for running a
journal is open access and has been refined to be easy to run. The
costs are not large to run a journal. There is no need for print
journals at all. (Actually, there never was. The article should have
been the unit of consumer publications). The analysis is too long.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard David Feinman
Professor of Cell Biology
SUNY Downstate Medical Center

blog: http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


-----LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
From: leo waaijers <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 20:35:09 +0100

The name of the list suggests that subscribers may be interested in
the current international OA licence negotiations. Therefore we take
the liberty to refer to a scenario analysis that has been written by
Maurits van der Graaf and me as a sequel to the renowned white paper
published by the Max Planck Society in the spring of 2015. It may be
found at:

http://www.pleiade.nl/HowcouldanOpenAccessScholarlyJournalsystemlooklike.pdf

We think that our analysis is spot on as it addresses the two topical
scenario's (author market and institutional market) on how to proceed
from the recent OA licenses to a full-blown open access world in 2020
or pretty soon thereafter, and which are currently under discussion in
the Netherlands and elsewhere. We are highly interested in comments of
yours and others, on or off the list. Specifically, we solicit your
opinion on which of the two scenarios would fit best. Or do you
foresee other ones? We are intending to incorporate these views in a
follow up paper later this year.

Leo Waaijers, [log in to unmask]