[GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[David Prosser]

I rather like the ‘How open is it?’ tool that approaches this as a spectrum:

http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/


I may be quite ‘hard line’, but I acknowledge that by moving along the spectrum a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open - and more open is better than less open.

If the funders have gone to the far end of the spectrum it is perhaps because they feel that the greatest benefits are there, not because they have been convinced that they have to follow the strict, ‘hard line’ definition of open access.

David



On 23 Jan 2017, at 18:30, Richard Poynder <richard.poynder at gmail.com<mailto:richard.poynder at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Marc,

You say:

"I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such:

I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means."

I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps not you, but OA advocates) are successfully convincing a growing number of research funders (e.g. Wellcome Trust, RCUK, Ford Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Gates Foundation etc.) that CC BY is the only acceptable form of open access.

So however tired you and Stevan might be of discussing it, I believe there are important implications and consequences flowing from that.

Richard Poynder



On 23 January 2017 at 16:31, Couture Marc <marc.couture at teluq.ca<mailto:marc.couture at teluq.ca>> wrote:
Hi all,

Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here.

I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such :

- I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit tired of discussions about what “being OA” means.

- I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low.

- I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to disseminate scientific/scholarly works and make them useful.

I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find the arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less compelling than those about the advantages of unrestricted uses and the drawbacks of restrictions that can be much more stringent than they seem at first glance.

Like Stevan said, OA advocates are indeed a plurality. The opposite would bother me.

Marc Couture



_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal




--
Richard Poynder
www.richardpoynder.co.uk<http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto: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/20170123/769f0295/attachment-0001.html