[BOAI] Re: [GOAL] On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost from Gratis to CC-BY

[downes]

I would also argue that CC-by is not what is wanted. It is consistent with
CC-By to block access with a subscription paywall - indeed, it has the
support of many publishers for precisely this reason.

The focus of CC in general and CC-by in particular is not access, it is
reuse. In principle, any material licensed CC-by could be extracted from a
for-pay repository and made available for gratis access, but in practice,
this never happens, and conditions can be put into place (like locked
technical measures that slow access) to make it inconvenient.

-- Stephen


On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:26:38 +0200 (CEST), holl at konkoly.hu (Andras Holl)
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> My opinion is that libre OA and CC By in particular is something
> that sounds good, but in reality nothing more than a misconception.
> It is thoughts, facts, ideas which should be reusable - and they
> already are - not articles. Gratis OA is what the scientific community
> needs, not libre. I operate a journal and several repository
> collections, all of my users appreciate and demand access, none
> of them wants anything more. Data mining would indeed be desirable,
> but how? At repositories we already have OAI-PMH. Green OA
> have the potential for even more. In my journal data mining is
> allowed (with technical conditions), but the journal's own
> sohisticated search system can provide more. Full text search
> is fine, but it is really semantic web? Is searching strings
> in the text data mining? I thing putting the CC BY label on 
> articles does not help much in this direction. We should think
> about providing machine-readable abstracts for articles, applying
> technologies like OAI ORE, instead of championing CC BY - something
> that should serve a completely different purpose. See my
> letter in JLCS ( http://jlsc-pub.org/jlsc/vol1/iss2/5/ ).
> 
> I agree with Stephan that tactically it is best to focus
> on gratis Green OA (without discouraging Gold). What I am saying
> more is that strategically CC BY is not what we want.
> 
> Andras Holl