<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Joe Kraus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joseph.kraus@du.edu" target="_blank">joseph.kraus@du.edu</a>></span> wrote:<div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">* 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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(50,51,51)"><i>But free online access is already within immediate reach and free online access with re-use rights is not...</i></p>
</div><div><i><br></i></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">* I am familiar with the argument that the perfect is the enemy of the good. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good</a> 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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><i style="color:rgb(50,51,51);font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px">But all non-subscribing users need free online access; not all or even most or many users need re-use rights</i><font color="#323333" face="Verdana"><i>…</i></font></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> * 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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>(No one said subscription access was good enough.)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
* 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.]<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(50,51,51)"><b><i>But free online access today will pave the way for free online access with re-use rights tomorrow...</i></b></p>
</div><div><b><i><br></i></b></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">* 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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>(Near-useless does not mean completely useless.)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
* 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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><i style="color:rgb(50,51,51);font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px">But institutions and funders can sooner </i><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/" style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(0,51,102)"><i>mandate</i></span></a><i style="color:rgb(50,51,51);font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px"> free online access than free online access with re-use rights…</i></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><b style="color:rgb(50,51,51);font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px"><i>But the better is already </i></b><a href="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" style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(0,51,102)"><b><i>within reach</i></b></span></a><b style="color:rgb(50,51,51);font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px"><i> and the best is not: why not grasp it?</i></b></div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div> Joseph R. Kraus</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<a href="mailto:joseph.kraus@du.edu">joseph.kraus@du.edu</a><br>
<a href="tel:303-871-4586" value="+13038714586">303-871-4586</a><br>
University of Denver | Main Library<br>
Connecting people to ideas<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: Stevan Harnad [<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 5:22 PM<br>
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>
Cc: SPARC Forum; LibLicense-L Discussion Forum<br>
Subject: [sparc-oaforum] I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
<br>
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Mitar <<a href="mailto:mitar@tnode.com">mitar@tnode.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:mitar@tnode.com">mitar@tnode.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> SH: Many (including me) are working hard to try to ensure that the US OSTP<br>
> mandate and the Canadian Tri-Agency mandate will be ID/OA too.<br>
<br>
[W]hat about the ambiguity of the word "open access" itself. Do those<br>
"mandates" require "open access" by allowing only free reading or also<br>
reuse and redistribution? "Open access" which does not allow use by<br>
computer but only manual access is not really something we want in<br>
21st century... tools should have access to publications as well. Tools<br>
should be allowed to analyze them. Tools should be allowed to distribute,<br>
push, pull them...<br>
<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
But we don't even have free online access yet...<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
But free online access is part of free online access with re-use rights...<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
But free online access is already within immediate reach and free online access with re-use rights is not...<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
But free online access will pave the way for free online access with re-use rights...<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are near-useless...<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
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...<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
But publishers will sooner allow authors to provide free online access than allow them to provide free online access with re-use rights…<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
But institutions and funders can sooner mandate free online access than free online access with re-use rights…<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
But all non-subscribing users need free online access; not all or even most or many users need re-use rights...<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
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...<br>
I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!<br>
But free online access is better, even if free online access with re-use rights is best...<br>
I don't want the better: I want the best!<br>
But the better is already within reach and the best is not...<br>
I don't want the better: I want the best!<br>
<br>
--<br>
--<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google<br>
Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:sparc-oaforum@arl.org">sparc-oaforum@arl.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to<br>
<a href="mailto:sparc-oaforum%2Bunsubscribe@arl.org">sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe@arl.org</a><br>
For more options, visit this group at<br>
<a href="http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum</a><br>
<br>
<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:sparc-oaforum%2Bunsubscribe@arl.org">sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe@arl.org</a>.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>