[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Sally Morris <
sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> **
> Forgive me, but isn't this a bit like trying to define 'freedom' according
> to strict criteria?
>
> Like it or not, 'open access' has become a widely used term which, at its
> most basic, does indeed just mean free online access to scholarly content.
>
> Further refinements are all very well, but are not going to change the way
> that most people understand and use the term.
>
> Does that actually matter?  I don't think so!
>

There are at least two areas where it matters very much:
* the commodity at issue is covered by copyright. By default a reader can
do nothing with a document and many people in the system are in danger of
violating the law if they misunderstand the situation. Formal licences and
permissions allow people to carry out certain actions without fear of being
prosecuted.
* publishers are selling goods with part of the value being "Open Acces".
Prices range up to 5000USD plus. If the only description of the good is
"Open Access" we should know precisely what it means, what is offered and
what is delivered. If Open Access were properly defined then several
offering as "Fully Open Access" might well breach the Trades Descriptions
Act in many jurisdictions.

P.

>
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120829/102c4ab9/attachment.html