[BOAI] OA vs CC-BY-NOW

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:

> "This sort of insistence on One Special License is exactly what is
> limiting the adoption of open access."
>
> Really? Any evidence? I'd welcome it if your definition of open access
> found universal acceptance. Would be a great step forward.
>
> Jan Velterop
>

While the CC-BY-NOW (Libre OA) partisans keep insisting on having it all,
now, thereby playing into the hands of Fools-Gold publishers whilst we
still hardly even have Gratis OA (free access online), those who would be
more than happy to have Gratis OA at long last are working to mandate it,
and to test and optimize mandates for it.

Evidence that insisting prematurely on more results in getting less is
there, in the two published studies, for those who did not already see the
obvious.

Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière,
Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2014) Estimating Open Access Mandate
Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score. <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/>
 (Submitted) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/

Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan; & Harnad, Stevan (2015) *Open
Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness*. Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3
Report. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/

Mandating Green Gratis OA is a clear, tried, tested, feasible strategy to
reach 100% Gratis Green OA globally. Do the CC-BY-NOW partisans have a
better or faster way, that's been tried, tested and shown to be feasible?
If so, we would all be very interested to hear what it is.

But don't reply with a journal or publisher that offers CC-BY for a price,
Most people are not buying (rightly). We are talking here about the entire
refereed-research output of the planet's c. 10,000 universities and
research institutions and we need a strategy that *scales*.

Stevan Harnad

>
>
> On 22 Jun 2015, at 12:34, Stephen Downes <stephen at downes.ca> wrote:
>
> > as I would define it
>
>
>
> And I would define it as *more* free than licenses thatg allow people to
> charge money for access to the document.
>
>
>
> This sort of insistence on One Special License is exactly what is limiting
> the adoption of open access.
>
>
>
> -- Stephen
>
>
>
> *From:* boai-forum-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk [
> mailto:boai-forum-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk
> <boai-forum-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk>] *On Behalf Of *Jan Velterop
> *Sent:* June-22-15 7:48 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Cc:* boai-forum at ecs.soton.ac.uk
> *Subject:* [BOAI] Re: [GOAL] a chronology about open access
>
>
>
> Nice chronology of open access. Unfortunately CC-BY-NC-SA, so itself not
> full open access as I would define it (though better than pay-walled,
> obviously).
>
> Jan Velterop
>
>
> On 22 Jun 2015, at 10:32, marie lebert <marie.lebert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all:
>
>
>
> https://marielebert.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/openaccesschronology/
>
>
>
> Best regards from France,
>
>
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20150622/4bd3d9d7/attachment.html