From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:16:05 +0000 I really don't think that anybody has argued that 'open access' has a single, unambiguous meaning across the whole of human endeavour. What some of us have argued is that 'open access' has a perfectly good definition within the scholarly communications field and that we shouldn't turn it into a simple synonym for 'free online access' - which is apparently what Joe and others wish to do. David On 14 Jan 2012, at 00:47, LIBLICENSE wrote: > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:25:26 -0800 > > I just stumbled on a story on PaidContent, which I clicked on because > the headline mentioned Open Access. Here is the story: > > http://paidcontent.org/article/419-hollywood-lambasts-sky-movies-ruling-but-open-access-gains-favour > > Is this story about the open access to research literature? No, it's > about access to set-top boxes for video in the UK. > > People who believe that OA has an unambiguous meaning are denying the facts. > > Joe Esposito > > -- > Joseph J. Esposito > Portable CEO > [log in to unmask] > @josephjesposito > +Joseph Esposito