From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:13:13 +0000 LERU has pithily described a slightly shorter version of this response as ’2.5 pages of nonsense’: http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/news/25-pages-of-nonsense-the-stm-statement-on-the-open-science-council-conclusions/ Can I focus on one point made in the longer version: "However publishers still require at a minimum an exclusive licensing of rights and sometimes a copyright transfer to enable publication on behalf of the author. " Is that true? Are PLoS and BMC and many other open access publishers requesting an exclusive licensing of rights? If not, can STM explain how these publishers are managing to maintain successful businesses? Thanks David On 3 Jun 2016, at 00:44, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 10:39:08 -0400 Of possible interest: STM members have read with interest and welcome the transparency in drafting the European Competitiveness Council conclusions on the transition towards an Open Science system. Further to our press release issued on the 28th May we have the following constructive feedback on the conclusions designed to strengthen and enhance the proposals http://www.stm-assoc.org/2016_05_28_STM_Extended_Feedback_EU_Compt_council_conclusions.pdf