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

Fri Aug 14 15:28:01 BST 2015

Yes there is an appetite for trying to rebuilt the past in changing OA names! 
But even if the words Green and Gold can hurt some people it has been adopted for years now by all institutions, for example in European reports, since 2006. See the last one in June 2015 : http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-information

Of course, everybody can rename Green and Gold as well as Open Access. But the difficulty will be to get the change worldwide. 

Nicolas Pettiaux, for example proposed in a previous mail, "Libre" instead of "Open Access"!

Therefore mixing his idea with your option, "Born Open Access" and "Secondary Open Access" could become "Born Libre" and "Trying to get Libre"... ;-) 

BTW, I am not sure that I have well understood what means Green and what means Gold in your proposition! 

We could play on this list to find best definition and vote for it! But the aim of Open Access is not to find the best OA word for 2015, then for 2016 and for 2020! The aim is to stay clear for all stake holders, at the time of important political decisions are taken. Policy makers seem to have understood what is Green and what is Gold. They need only to have more details on the true Gold and Green roads which really conduct to OA.

To be efficient today, we just need to repeat what is precisely Green or Gold, and how to get it, in each publication, conference, blog  and forum, as Stevan Harnad and Jean-Claude Guédon do it for years now.  

Hélène Bosc
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Danny Kingsley 
  To: goal at eprints.org 
  Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 6:56 PM
  Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

  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:

    a.. 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/ 
    b.. 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/ 
    c.. 'We hope to build a common dictionary of terms about open access to facilitate sharing of information' http:// 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/goal/attachments/20150814/fa2bb2c6/attachment-0001.html 