<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16684">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Looking at the graphs that are in </FONT><A
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html">Paid Gold OA
Versus Free Gold OA: Against Color Cacophony</A><FONT face=Calibri> I see
that I was really under the truth when I said in my previous message
of the 15th August that OA free, colored and hightly precious terminology
has been discussed more than 100 times .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>I should have said : " 1000 times"!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Hélène Bosc</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=amsciforum@gmail.com href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">Stevan
Harnad</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=goal@eprints.org
href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">Global Open Access List (Successor of
AmSci)</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:42
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] OA Provision vs. OA
Semiology</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>The purpose of terminology and definitions is to clarify and simplify
their referents.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The BBB description of OA, based on the <A
href="http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read">first B in 2002</A>,
was <A
href="http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html">updated
in 2008</A> to distinguish Green from Gold OA and Gratis from Libre OA,
exactly along the lines described:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>See also:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html">On
"Diamond OA," "Platinum OA," "Titanium OA," and "Overlay-Journal OA,"
Again</A></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV>and</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html">Paid Gold
OA Versus Free Gold OA: Against Color
Cacophony</A> (2013)</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>And, to repeat: </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>There is no "Platinum" OA. OA is about access, not about
funding mechanisms</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>(of which there are three: subscription fee, publication
fee, or subsidy</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>[the latter not to be confused with
"gratis"])</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a
good idea to stop fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on
providing it...</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Stevan Harnad</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>On Aug 19, 2015, at 3:00 AM, MIGUEL ERNESTO NAVAS
FERNANDEZ <<A
href="mailto:miguel.navas@ub.edu">miguel.navas@ub.edu</A>> wrote:<BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>Dear all,<BR>I would like to answer to the
definitions given by Stevan Harnad:<BR>1. Green OA means OA provided by the
author (usually by self-archiving the refereed, revised, accepted final
draft in an OA repository)<BR>2. Gold OA means OA provided by the journal
(often for a publication fee)<BR>3. Gratis OA means free online
access.<BR>4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights<BR>I agree
with the idea that we should use the same official definitions, but when
those a) are not clear, b) look contradictious and c) fail to represent
reality, then we should clarify them a little.<BR>And I think that they are
not clear (what does a color name mean?), look contradictious (OA cannot be
only gratis according to BBB definitions) and c) they fail to represent
reality if they do not consider OA-ACP (Platinum OA) and OA+APC (Commercial
OA) as different things.<BR>I will explain myself.<BR>First, I don't agree
with statements 3 and 4. According to the last official OA definition given
by at Bethesda (<A
href="http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition">http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition</A>),
"An Open Access Publication[1] is one that meets the following two
conditions:<BR>1) The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all
users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a
license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and
to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any
responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship[2], as well
as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal
use.<BR>2) A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,
including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard
electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at
least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution,
scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organization
that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution,
interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences,
PubMed Central is such a repository).<BR>Reading only 1), Open Access = free
access + re-use rights. Free access only is not OA. Therefore, "gratis OA"
would not exist, for it is not OA yet. In other words, "Gratis OA" should be
called free or gratis access, and "Libre OA" should be called just OA. The
use of "gratis" and "libre" is given by the open software culture, not by OA
official definitions.<BR>That said, if a majority of researchers is using
"gratis OA" or "libre OA" (as the mentioned Peter Suber does, for instance),
I am not going to fight them back. I will accept what is used by the
majority. But then I don't understand that belligerence when other terms as
Platinum appear.<BR>Second, it is true that Platinum is not "official", but
no one can deny that Gold OA journals published by universities and public
research bodies at no cost for the author are a different thing from Gold OA
journals published by commercial enterprises, including hybrid journals.
That doesn't seem logical for me. It would be as calling full, hybrid and
embargo journals the same OA with no difference among them (if hybrid and
embargo journals are really OA, something that I doubt). You can call it "OA
with APC" vs. "subsidized OA" or something like that, but we need a name,
and Platinum doesn't seem inappropriate for me. Anyone has a better
name?<BR>I don't see a reason for not using a clear name to make them
different. For instance, journals published by Scielo and many LAC
universities do not charge authors at all, while PLoS charges from $1,350 to
$2,900, Taylor and Francis $2,950, Springer €3,000, Elsevier from $500 to
$5,000... I don't want to start a political / ethical discussion here, I
just want to state that these types of OA are different and need a different
name. Call it Platinum OA vs. Commercial OA, call it Author-pays OA v.
Subsidized OA, but call it a name.<BR>Platinum OA (or whatever you may call
it) may not be important in Western publishing cultures, but if we want OA
to be universal, the first thing we need to do is to treat it from a
universal point of view.<BR>Thanks a lot.<BR>Best,<BR>Miguel
Navas-Fernández<BR>PhD Researcher at Universitat de Barcelona<BR>Member of
Acceso Abierto research group<BR>Associate Editor of DOAJ<BR>ORCID Linkedin
Twitter<BR>------------------------------<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>Date: Mon,14 Aug 2015 13:27:17 -0400<BR>From: Stevan
Harnad <<A
href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</A>><BR>1.
Green OA means *OA provided by the author* (usually by self-archiving the
refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository)<BR>2. Gold OA
means OA *provided by the journal* (often for a publication fee)<BR>3.
Gratis OA means free online access.<BR>4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus
various re-use rights<BR>There is no "Platinum" OA. OA is about access,
not about funding mechanisms<BR>(of which there are three: subscription
fee, publication fee, or subsidy<BR>[the latter not to be confused with
"gratis"])<BR>After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a
good idea to stop fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on
providing it...<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>Date: Mon,17 Aug 2015 13:27:17 -0400<BR>From: Stevan
Harnad <<A
href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</A>><BR>The
analogies with the free/open software movement are outweighed by
the<BR>disanalogies:<BR>1. OA is primarily about journal articles.<BR>2.
Journal articles do not consist of executable code but of text.<BR>3.
Unlike proprietary software, the *content* of journal articles is,
and<BR>always was, open.<BR>4. It's just that you have to pay to
*access* the content, because access<BR>to the proprietary *text* is not
free.<BR>5. Nor is the text "open" in the sense of re-publication,
re-use, mash-up<BR>rights.<BR>6. Gratis OA seeks to make the text
free.<BR>7. Libre OA seeks to make the text
open.</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>GOAL mailing
list<BR>GOAL@eprints.org<BR>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>