From: Heather Morrison <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 16:28:10 -0800
Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Surely the term 'Open Access' refers to the access - which is, after
all, far and away the most important point; any stipulations about
reuse are not, strictly, about access?
Heather Morrison Comment:
The Budapest Open Access Initiative definition reads:
By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on
the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy,
distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these
articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or
use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or
technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to
the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and
distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should
be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the
right to be properly acknowledged and cited.
From: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read
There are a variety of ways of providing various degrees of "free"
that are not full open access. One of the basic distinctions is
between "gratis" - free to read - and "libre" - free for reuse. Peter
Suber detailed the differences in the August 2008 SPARC Open Access
Newsletter: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre
There are nuances and variations within libre and gratis open access.
My perspective is that what we are seeing at the moment is what I call
the challenges of success of open access. Many existing and new
publishers want to be (or be considered to be) open access. This
raises a number of interesting questions about what should be
considered as the minimum for open access. I think lots of discussion
is needed. Perhaps Liblicense is one good venue for this discussion?
As a starter, I would suggest that gratis open access means, at
minimum, free to read, download and print, for anyone, anywhere,
regardless of circumstances. This is important, because it means that
open access using a "noncommercial" license should be restricted to
something like the meaning of "no resale". Using content for
advertising purposes would not be acceptable, but I am wondering
whether this would be a violation of the author's moral rights
regardless of CC license.
The term open access can refer to a work, a process, an organization,
etc. When a journal makes articles freely available after an embargo
period, to avoid confusion I recommend referring to this approach as
"free back issues", not open access. Once the works themselves become
freely available, then they are open access.
best,
Heather Morrison, MLIS
Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication
http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
|
