[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

Thu Aug 13 17:56:01 BST 2015

Hi all,

There is some appetite it seems for looking at definitions at the 
moment. In the last couple of weeks I have tweeted about the following:

  * COAR has a 'Resource Type Vocabulary Draft' - standard naming of
    items in repositories available for comment -
    https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-interoperability/ig-controlled-vocabularies-for-repository-assets/deliverables/
  * Open Research Glossary' so we can all be more informed about vastly
    complex topic 'Open Scholarship' -
    http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/2015/07/14/the-open-research-glossary-round-2/
  * 'We hope to build a common dictionary of terms about open access to
    facilitate sharing of information' http:// <http://t.co/Y5tnTbcAGl>
    http://dictionary.casrai.org/Open_Access_APC_Report

My issue is with the terms 'green' and 'gold' which are entirely 
arbitrary. The main problem I have is that 'gold' implies 'the best' and 
it implies 'expensive' and it is not necessarily either.

If we have an option I think we should refer to these two routes to OA 
as 'Born Open Access' and 'Secondary Open Access'. Considerably more 
understandable to the external audience.

Danny

-- 
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: dak45 at cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939

On 13/08/2015 16:58, goal-request at eprints.org wrote:
> Send GOAL mailing list submissions to
> 	goal at eprints.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	goal-request at eprints.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	goal-owner at eprints.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: libre vs open (Darnton, Robert)
>     2. Re: libre vs open (Nicolas Pettiaux)
>     3. Re: libre vs open (Jean-Claude Gu?don)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:24:45 +0000
> From: "Darnton, Robert" <robert_darnton at harvard.edu>
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open
> To: H?l?ne.Bosc <hbosc-tchersky at orange.fr>, "Global	Open Access List
> 	(Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
> Cc: "Lessig, Lawrence" <lessig at law.harvard.edu>
> Message-ID: <D1F22DA9.77B3%robert_darnton at harvard.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Fellow Travelers,
>
> For what it's worth, I would like to express my agreement with H?l?ne Bosc's argument.  In my own experience, "acc?s libre" works well in France and Qu?bec, "open access" in English-speaking countries.  Those phrases have caught on, and it is too late to change them now.
>
> Best wishes,
> Bob Darnton
>
> From: "H?l?ne.Bosc" <hbosc-tchersky at orange.fr<mailto:hbosc-tchersky at orange.fr>>
> Reply-To: "H?l?ne.Bosc" <hbosc-tchersky at orange.fr<mailto:hbosc-tchersky at orange.fr>>
> Date: Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:07 AM
> To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>>
> Cc: "Lessig, Lawrence" <lessig at law.harvard.edu<mailto:lessig at law.harvard.edu>>, Robert Darnton <robert_darnton at harvard.edu<mailto:robert_darnton at harvard.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] libre vs open
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150813/26f8db98/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:27:34 +0200
> From: Nicolas Pettiaux <nicolas at pettiaux.be>
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open
> To: goal at eprints.org
> Message-ID: <55CCB766.3010302 at pettiaux.be>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> Much thanks H?l?ne for the detailed explanation.
>
> I know (and have known) personnally Bernard Lang and Jean-Claude Gu?don
> for years, and I admit that I am late writing again about such a topic.
>
> I appreciate that at least in French in 2002 it was clear that the word
> "libre acc?ss" was used (hence I supposed was better suited)
>
> I appreciate your reference to the post of Peter Suber and his long
> explanation about "gratis and libre OA".
>
> I appreciate that you blog itself is "Libre acc?s ? la connaissance".
>
> I have more insight about the topics, I understand more about the
> context (even though I had read a lot)
>
> I will not fight nor spend much energy on this topic (libre vs open),
> but I also consider that the word "open" today does not reflect the
> philosophy that many academic want to put when they speak about the kind
> of access they want just for science to exist.
>
> Science without full reproducibility is not science.
>
> Science with any barrier (eg. price) in a world where it is possible to
> remove them is not science for everyone, because the people who
> experience barriers cannot reproduce.
>
> About removing the barrier, as much as possible, in today's world, I
> consider that computer and internet access is not a barrier, even if I
> recognize that many people cannot afford them. I also see that some
> actors do not want or do not care, people who see their own financial
> interests before mankind progress ... even though they may claim it
> differently.
>   
> Today, I see that some actors push for the meaning of "open access" to
> become by default "gold open access" which many of us do not appreciate.
>
> So even if my request comes late, possibly too late, I see that some
> semantic discussion still take place and will for a long foreseable
> future, and that such a discussion on the words used themselves will
> drive the views people have about the concepts. I remember reading an
> "old" book, 1984, where people are in charge of reviewing history and
> other deleting words from the dictionnary.
>
> As a teacher, as well as a citizen, I do teach every day people around
> me. Amongst them journalists. It is our responsability to teach them
> well. Fellows citizens and journalists. It will be a task for everyday.
>
> As a physics teacher, though physics is an old subject, and it is driven
> by the laws of nature that are not human made laws, that are well
> described, I have come to realize that many people have such a laking
> (could say bad) education of initial education, that I often need to
> reeducate them to correct their understanding of the world.
>
> If Open Access has some traction in Academia, it has still a long way as
> to go with the students and the population at large. So a change with
> the vocabulary when *these* people are addressed may still be very
> effective.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Nicolas
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150813/02329f1a/attachment.html 