From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:05:46 -0400 As one of the original signatories of Budapest, I feel compelled to respond to Sandy Thatcher. First of all, the Budapest declaration is not the end all, or definitive definition of OA; it is only the first public one signed as a group. Now, regarding the issue of "venerability by virtue of ancestry" that Thatcher seems to bring up, let me remind this list that People like Jim O'Donnell, Michael Strangelove, Stevan Harnad and myself (and others I forget) were advocating OA from the late '80's. Ann Okerson was also involved in these early efforts. In my own case, the journals Surfaces began publishing in November 1991 (thus a bit after similar endeavours by O'Donnell and Harnad), and was immediately in OA. In Montreal, we had been working on finding the ways to launch this publication since at least 1989 when we received a grant in the form of equipment from Apple. Psycholoquy appeared earlier, as did publications launched by Jim O'Donnell. So, if we go into the ancestry game, some of the OA advocates present at Budapest (Leslie Chan, Stevan Harnad, yours truly and probably a couple others I am forgetting now) were indeed pushing this open access line, at least locally, quite early. But so were others, not present at Budapest, who practised OA, but have not advocated it in a central way. I am actually puzzled by Thatcher's reaction. Reviewing the thread in the messages below, I do not see any reference to Budapest. Why this outburst? May I also remind Thatcher that the request to have CC-BY as the preferred mode could be mentioned only after CC licenses were developed, and that was after Budapest. In conclusion, original signatories of the Budapest document have constantly felt involved in what OA means, but, since 2002, OA has also evolved, if only because we all understand the nature of digital documents a bit better now than before. That these original signatories should continue to feel engaged with the very notion of what OA means is not particularly surprising, but anyone else is welcome to join in (and I do not think an invitation is needed here as plenty of people have - rightly so - invited themselves). PS The Budapest meeting was on December 1st, 2001, not 2002 as Thatcher claims; the BOAI appeared on February 14th, 2002 as a sequel to that meeting. Just to keep dates clear and clean. -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le mercredi 03 juin 2015 à 20:23 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit : From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:09:52 -0500 Why should the people who met in Budapest in 2002 have a monopoly on the "correct" definition of open access? There were some of us working on open-access projects long before that meeting was held and developing business models around them. I trace the history of one such project for OA monograph publishing in the CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) in the early 1990s in the lead article in the April issue of the Journal of Scholarly Publishing. The appropriate CC license for that initiative (before CC existed) would have been CC BY-NC-ND. Sandy Thatcher > From: "Peter B. Hirtle" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:56:26 +0000 > > I agree with Klaus Graf that CC BY is the only appropriate license for > open access. To argue otherwise only obfuscates the clear, settled > definition of open access. > > But he is wrong about the Creative Commons ND licenses. First, he > misquotes Virginia Boucher who in her blog post speaks of the NC > licenses, not the ND licenses. And as for the ND license, it is > perfectly ok to excerpt content from an ND license. As the legal code > for that license says, it grants you the right to "Reproduce and Share > the Licensed Material, in whole or in part." Note the "in part." That > means that you can use excerpts or take a figure from an ND-licensed > work. You would, however, need to mark the excerpt with the > attribution and license of the original. What you can't do is > distribute any modified versions of an ND-licensed work without > permission (what the licenses call "adapted material"). > > Since knowledge advances by building upon and modifying the work of > our predecessors, an ND license is inappropriate for academic content. > But it is not as restrictive as Graf suggests. > > Peter Hirtle > Cornell University