From: Sandy Thatcher <
[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:19:35 -0500
But, as I've said here before, if you take that approach and rule out
anything that is not strictly compliant with the BOAI definition, then
you are right away divorcing the OA movement from practically every OA
monograph publishing program that currently exists. Is that a price
you really want to pay for OA purism? Think about the wider
consequences of what you are recommending here....
Sandy Thatcher
From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:25:44 +0000
Well, if the author retains commercial rights, the 'open access' in
question is not BOAI-compliant, and it is about time to stop calling
anything Open Access that is not covered by CC-BY, CC-zero, or
equivalent. Open Access is well-defined in the Budapest Open Access
Initiative and stretching the notion to include all manner of
pseudo-OA causes the problems and anxieties Sandy Thatcher points to.
Jan Velterop
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:20:32 -0500
There may be an "orphan" problem with OA articles whose authors retain
commercial rights and who become difficult to locate later on. (Also,
if they are deceased, their heirs will have inherited such rights and
they may well be unaware that they even own such rights.) Indeed, the
problem will likely be greater than for traditional publishing, where
such rights are typically owned by the publisher, which (unless it
goes out of business) is easy to locate.
Sandy Thatcher