Andras,<br>Thanks very much - this is a very useful statement to comment on.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Andras Holl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:holl@konkoly.hu" target="_blank">holl@konkoly.hu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font>Dear All,<b>
<br>
<br></b>The thing whether Open Access relates to an individual article
<br>or a whole journal is not clear.</font></div></blockquote><div><br>Agreed - The normal practice is that a journal publisher will state the rights for the whole article. the problem arises where authors create different rights for a single article, normally by "hybrid Gold OA". The rights here are usually not clearly spelled out on the article. It is usually not even clear this is a hybrid article, or when this is made clear (with, say a star "Free Content" or some such phrase - it varies by publisher) what the rights are. The phrase "Free content", "Author Choice" is publisher-specific and very hard to interpret, even by human.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><font> Does libre OA mean that anyone
<br>is free to redistribute the whole journal, or only one, a few article?
<br></font></div></blockquote><div><br>libre OA means almost nothing. <br><br>BOAI means that anyone can re-use the content in whatever way they like. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><font>Text mining rights are meaningful only for the whole journal.
<br></font></div></blockquote><div><br>This is probably true in practice until there are machine-readable licences. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><font>My opinion that they should be granted</font></div></blockquote><div><br>Thank you!<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><font> - the problem I have
<br>is not with the rights. It is with the practice. The OA journal
<br>I manage has every article available in several formats - LaTeX, PS. PDF, HTML -
<br>some of these are generated on-the-fly, some static. Indiscriminate
<br>harvesting is a prolem for me. What I would like to have is
<br>some method, which is a mix of robots.txt and htaccess,
<br>maybe with a touch of legal content about the scope of
<br>possible use of harvested content.
<br></font></div></blockquote><div><br>That is exactly what we are doing in our Manifesto on Open Content Mining. Trying to make everything clear<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><font>
<br>So, in my opinion, the real worls situation is even more complex
<br>than either gratis or libre. There are many flavors of OA, and
<br>I do not think that sticking to the bOAI definition would do much good.
<br>
<br></font></div></blockquote><div>BOAI is the only current specification that allows textmining but I agree, it would be better to have other documents. I believe that it is meaningful to mine toll-access documents and we need clear licences for this.<br>
<br></div><font>P.<br><br></font></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>