<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 2012-05-09, at 8:02 AM, David Prosser wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">Over-reaching, and carping about definitions and ideals, and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">especially preaching that continuing no-OA is preferable to low-bar-OA<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is just what is keeping us treading water year upon year, instead of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">flooding the planet (irreversibly) with the Green Gratis OA that we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">could already have.<br></blockquote><br>I don't think that there is a shred of evidence to support the thesis</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div> that we would have 100% green gratis OA today if only nobody</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>had mentioned full OA. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>No one has said that. Just that we should reach for what it within</div><div>our grasp rather than over-reaching and getting next to nothing.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>And suggesting that anybody is preaching 'continued no-OA is</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>preferable to low-bar-OA' is a rather disingenuous misrepresentation</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>of the position of those of us who support full OA take.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I quote from Jan Velterop:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; "><pre>> JV: So by all means, let legal measures play a role, but not at the expense of
> lowering the bar to 'gratis' OA. If one believes in mandates, then there is
> no reason why BOAI-compliant OA ('libre' in your lingo) should not be
> mandated.</pre></span><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>David<br><br><br><br><br>On 9 May 2012, at 12:53, Stevan Harnad wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">No, mandated Green Gratis OA cannot be prevented or "rescinded" by publishers<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(and publishers are well aware of that -- it is researchers who are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">naive about it).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On the contrary, the more OA we have, the harder it is to retard or resist it:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the change is optimal, self-reinforcing, and irreversible:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned">http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Please, please let's stop being so short-sighted. The reason it is so<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">important to lower barriers and grasp what is within reach<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(universally mandated Green, Gratis OA) is that that is what will<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">bring us all the other good things we also seek (Libre OA, Gold OA,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">copyright reform).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Over-reaching, and carping about definitions and ideals, and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">especially preaching that continuing no-OA is preferable to low-bar-OA<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is just what is keeping us treading water year upon year, instead of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">flooding the planet (irreversibly) with the Green Gratis OA that we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">could already have.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Stevan Harnad<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">** Cross-Posted **<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On 2012-05-09, at 4:12 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I would favour doing away with both the terms 'libre OA' and 'gratis OA'.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Open Access suffices. It's the 'open' that says it all. Especially if it is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">made<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">clear that OA means BOAI-compliant OA in the context of scholarly<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">research literature.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I don't doubt that Jan would like to do away with the terms libre and gratis<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">OA.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">He has been arguing all along that free online access is not open access,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ever since 2003 on the American Scientist Open Access Forum:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#msg6478">http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#msg6478</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This would mean that my "subversive proposal" of 1994 was not really a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">proposal for open access and that the existing open access mandates<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and policies of funders and institutions worldwide are not really open<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">access<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mandates or policies.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/">http://roarmap.eprints.org/</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">It is in large part for this reason that in 2008 Peter Suber and I proposed<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the terms "gratis" and "libre" open access to ensure that the term<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"open access" retained its meaning, and to make explicit the two<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">distinct conditions involved: free online access (gratis OA) and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">certain re-use rights (libre OA):<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/strong-and-weak-oa.html">http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/strong-and-weak-oa.html</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">For Peter Murray-Rust's crusade for journal article text-mining rights,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">apart from reiterating my full agreement that these are highly important<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and highly desirable and even urgent in certain fields, I would like<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to note that -- as PM-R has stated -- neither gratis OA nor libre OA<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">is necessary for the kinds of text-mining rights he is seeking. They<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">can be had via a special licensing agreement from the publisher.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">There is no ambiguity there: The text-mining rights can be granted<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">even if the articles themselves are not made openly accessible,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">free for all.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">And, as Richard Poynder has just pointed out, publishers are<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">quite aware of (perhaps even relieved with) this option, with<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Elsevier lately launching an experiment in it:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2012-May/000433.html">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2012-May/000433.html</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This makes it clear that the text-mining rights PM-R seeks can be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">had without either sort of OA, gratis or libre...<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Let us hope the quest for Open Access itself is not derailed in this<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">direction.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Stevan Harnad<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On 9 May 2012, at 08:30, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jan Velterop <<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com">velterop@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">JV> So by all means, let legal measures play a role, but not at the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">expense of lowering the bar to 'gratis' OA. If one believes in mandates,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">then there is no reason why BOAI-compliant OA ('libre' in your [SH] lingo)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">should not be mandated.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I'd like to suggest that the term "libre OA" be dropped. "Gratis OA" implies<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">freedom for anyone to read the manuscript somewhere. "Libre OA" imlies the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"removal of some permission barriers" but neither says which or how many.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Since Gratis OA has already required the removal of one permission barrier<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(the permission being granted to post on the web, permanently) it can be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">argued that all Gratis OA is ipso facto Libre OA.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This renders the term Unnecessary and confusiing, and allows many people and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">organizations to imply they are granting rights and permissions beyond<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">GratisOA when they are not. If there are current examples where the use of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"libreOA" plays a useful role it would be useful to see them.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The only terms that make operational sense and are clear are Gratis OA and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">BOAI-compliant OA . It is a pity that the latter is a long phrase and maybe<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">its usage will contract the phrase.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I would be grateful for clear discourse on these definitions and the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">suggestion of retiring "libreOA".<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">P.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">--<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Peter Murray-Rust<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Reader in Molecular Informatics<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">University of Cambridge<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">CB2 1EW, UK<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">+44-1223-763069<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">GOAL mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">GOAL mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>