LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Message-ID:
Sender:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:36:12 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
From: Thomas Krichel <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:52:16 +0000

Hamaker, Charles <[log in to unmask]> writes

> Elsevier and its cynical relationship with authors and institutions,
> has been demonstrated by Elsevier itself. No one could have done this
> to them but themselves.
>
> The tide of OA, of authors making sure people who need to see it,
> get to read their research, OA in all its guises, is inexorable and
> if handled correctly even by such behemoths as Elsevier, will lift
> all boats in the publishing stream, despite the scaremongers and
> naysayers in publishing, or the mistaken advice of some in
> libraries, or even among OA advocates themselves. It's logic is
> persuasive, its goals commensurate ultimately with what authors want
> for their own research. To put up and enforce barriers to what
> scholars want to distribute that they themselves produce is
> antediluvian.

You talk the talk Charles. Will you now walk the walk and cancel
your Elsevier subscriptions?

Cheers,

Thomas Krichel
http://openlib.org/home/krichel

ATOM RSS1 RSS2