From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 00:24:40 -0500 I was reacting to Peter Hirtle's claim about a "clear, settled definition of open access" and questioning why we should accept the BOIA as a definitive statement of what OA means, as some people seem to do. As for earlier efforts, again those that Jean-Claude mentions all concerned journals, not monographs. And the thinking that led up to the CIC proposal actually got its start a decade or so earlier. For those earlier OA journal initiatives he mentions, though, I would ask whether they were operated under what CC later came to define as the CC BY approach. Did they all anticipate BOIA in that respect, or did they take a different approach? Did they attempt to spell out explicitly for their readers exactly what rights they has for reuse? Sandy Thatcher > 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