[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Joe Kraus <joseph.kraus at du.edu> wrote:

* You seem to confuse the Boolean AND with the Boolean OR.  By saying that
> some researchers "don't want free online access: [they] want free online
> access with re-use rights," you make it seem as if they want either one
> access model OR the other access model (as if they would not read and learn
> from an article that has free online access if they can't get reuse
> rights.)   When, it is the case that many researchers who want reuse rights
> want both free online access, AND they would also like to have reuse rights.
>

*But free online access is already within immediate reach and free online
access with re-use rights is not...*

* I am familiar with the argument that the perfect is the enemy of the
> good.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good  You
> seem to imply that your version of "good enough" for Gratis OA should be
> good enough for others because it is good enough for you.  I would argue
> that that is not the case for everyone.  Just because Gratis OA is good
> enough for you does not mean that it is good enough for everyone.  No one
> made you the decider of good enough.
>

*But all non-subscribing users need free online access; not all or even
most or many users need re-use rights**…*


>  * Concerning the definition of good-enough, I've heard from some
> publishers for years and years that access to content through subscriptions
> is good enough because most researchers are affiliated with research
> institutions, and if the institution does not subscribe, then they can get
> access through Interlibrary loan.  Also, if a researcher is not affiliated,
> they can just drive to a university library for access, and that is good
> enough.  That definition of good enough is not good enough for many people.
>

(No one said subscription access was good enough.)


> *  In the 1960s, NASA shouldn't have tried to go to the Moon, because it
> was extremely difficult and dangerous.  It would have been a lot easier for
> NASA to only put a man in orbit around the Earth.  That would have been
> good enough to show Russia our technical superiority.  [In other words, the
> wants and needs of some people and organizations may seem outlandish, but
> you will never know unless you have a lofty goal, and you give it a try.
>  There is nothing wrong with people who would like to see greater Libre OA
> with reuse rights.]
>

*But free online access today will pave the way for free online access with
re-use rights tomorrow...*

* When you said "But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a
> field are near-useless..."  What is your citation for this claim?  I would
> argue that reuse rights and text mining rights to the corpus of the PLOS
> article archive is a boon to many researchers even though they can't access
> all research in a specific given field.
>

(Near-useless does not mean completely useless.)


> * While I would like all scholarly content to be CC0 so that readers and
> researchers don't have to worry about copyright claims and issues, I am
> realistic that most academic and scholarly content is not ever going to be
> CC0.  But, I would much rather have academic content be Libre (and/or
> CC-BY) so that the reuse rights can be taken advantage of for people who
> wish to use that feature.  So, I have an even loftier best case scenario
> than your argument saying that Libre is too much to ask for right now, and
> that OA advocates should just be happy to settle for gratis-only content.
>  Thus, my definition of good enough (and better, best, and perfect) is
> certainly different from your definitions.
>

*But institutions and funders can sooner
**mandate*<http://roarmap.eprints.org/>*
free online access than free online access with re-use rights…*


> The more I learn about the needs and wants of various researchers, I am
> starting to see the advantages of Libre scholarly content.  I won't turn
> down access to gratis OA, but I would rather support Libre OA scholarship
> when the situation seems fit.
>

*But the better is already **within
reach*<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=grasp+OR+libre+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>*
and the best is not: why not grasp it?*

Stevan Harnad
 Joseph R. Kraus

> joseph.kraus at du.edu
> 303-871-4586
> University of Denver | Main Library
> Connecting people to ideas
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Stevan Harnad [amsciforum at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 5:22 PM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Cc: SPARC Forum; LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
> Subject: [sparc-oaforum] I don't want free online access: I want free
> online access with re-use rights!
>
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Mitar <mitar at tnode.com<mailto:
> mitar at tnode.com>> wrote:
>
> > SH: Many (including me) are working hard to try to ensure that the US
> OSTP
> > mandate and the Canadian Tri-Agency mandate will be ID/OA too.
>
> [W]hat about the ambiguity of the  word "open access" itself. Do those
> "mandates" require "open access" by allowing only free reading or also
> reuse and redistribution? "Open access" which does not allow use by
> computer but only manual access is not really something we want in
> 21st century... tools should have access to publications as well. Tools
> should be allowed to analyze them. Tools should be allowed to distribute,
> push, pull them...
>
>  I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But we don't even have free online access yet...
> I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But free online access is part of free online access with re-use rights...
> I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But free online access is already within immediate reach and free online
> access with re-use rights is not...
> I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But free online access will pave the way for free online access with
> re-use rights...
> I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are
> near-useless...
> I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But publishers allowing authors to provide free online access and re-use
> rights can immediately be undercut by free-riding rival publishers;
> publishers allowing authors to provide free online access alone cannot...
> I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But publishers will sooner allow authors to provide free online access
> than allow them to provide free online access with re-use rights…
> I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But institutions and funders can sooner mandate free online access than
> free online access with re-use rights…
> I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But all non-subscribing users need free online access; not all or even
> most or many users need re-use rights...
> I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But all authors already want all non-subscribing users to have immediate
> free online access; not all or even most or many authors know or care about
> re-use rights yet...
> I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!
> But free online access is better, even if free online access with re-use
> rights is best...
> I don't want the better: I want the best!
> But the better is already within reach and the best is not...
> I don't want the better: I want the best!
>
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sparc-oaforum at arl.org
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131228/55ab3ce4/attachment-0001.html