From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:20:32 -0600
The restriction of the term "open access" to just schemes that permit
not only reading on screen but also downloading and printing would
rule out most of the book programs that use POD as a primary revenue
stream to support making available books for free use online at no
charge. Do you really want to deny usage of the term to such schemes?
You would then find it very difficult to encourage book publishers to
move in the direction of open access.
Sandy Thatcher
At 4:56 PM -0500 1/5/12, LIBLICENSE wrote:
> From: Heather Morrison <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 16:28:10 -0800
>
>
> Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Surely the term 'Open Access' refers to the access - which is, after
> all, far and away the most important point; any stipulations about
> reuse are not, strictly, about access?
>
> Heather Morrison Comment:
>
> The Budapest Open Access Initiative definition reads:
>
> By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on
> the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy,
> distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these
> articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or
> use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or
> technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to
> the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and
> distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should
> be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the
> right to be properly acknowledged and cited.
>
> From: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read
>
> There are a variety of ways of providing various degrees of "free"
> that are not full open access. One of the basic distinctions is
> between "gratis" - free to read - and "libre" - free for reuse. Peter
> Suber detailed the differences in the August 2008 SPARC Open Access
> Newsletter: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre
>
> There are nuances and variations within libre and gratis open access.
> My perspective is that what we are seeing at the moment is what I call
> the challenges of success of open access. Many existing and new
> publishers want to be (or be considered to be) open access. This
> raises a number of interesting questions about what should be
> considered as the minimum for open access. I think lots of discussion
> is needed. Perhaps Liblicense is one good venue for this discussion?
>
> As a starter, I would suggest that gratis open access means, at
> minimum, free to read, download and print, for anyone, anywhere,
> regardless of circumstances. This is important, because it means that
> open access using a "noncommercial" license should be restricted to
> something like the meaning of "no resale". Using content for
> advertising purposes would not be acceptable, but I am wondering
> whether this would be a violation of the author's moral rights
> regardless of CC license.
>
> The term open access can refer to a work, a process, an organization,
> etc. When a journal makes articles freely available after an embargo
> period, to avoid confusion I recommend referring to this approach as
> "free back issues", not open access. Once the works themselves become
> freely available, then they are open access.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison, MLIS
> Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication
> http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
|
