Excerpts from Free Online Scholarship (FOS) Newsletter May 6, 2002 and May 15, 2002
Open access helps the bottom line Advanced searching with Google variations Google is the second-most used search engine for chemistry research by professional chemists, after ChemWeb (see FOSN for 2/25/02, 4/22/02). Google's sorting algorithm and index size make it useful for serious scientific research even in direct competition with searchable databases dedicated to scientific content. http://www.freepint.com/issues/040402.htm#feature http://www.managinginformation.com/news/content_show_full.php?id=3D371 One of Google's smarter moves recently was to publish its API so that programmers could build Google searching into their own programs. With a few lines of code programmers can incorporate all the power of Google into a program, and then with a few more lines tweak and vary this power to suit their needs or visions. Some search innovations wouldn't work on their own but would very well when added to the Google feature set. Some innovations would work very well on their own but would work even better when applied to Google's index of more then two billion continuously refreshed web pages. Google's decision to open its API will trigger an explosion of creativity in search technology. If you have a special searching need not met by existing search engines, it's likely that someone's Google-variant will soon meet your need. If not, you can take a whack at doing it yourself. Here are some of the Google-variants now online. Google email interface, from CapeClear. http://capescience.capeclear.com/google/ (Send an email to <google [at] capeclear.com> with the search string in the subject line. CapeClear software will send you back an email of the top 10 results.) Google API Proximity Search (GAPS), from Staggernation http://www.staggernation.com/cgi-bin/gaps.cgi (Find keywords within 1, 2 or 3 words of one another.) Google API Relation Browsing Outliner (GARBO) http://www.staggernation.com/garbo/ (Enter a URL, get a collapsible outline either of related pages or of pages linking to the URL.) Google Web Search by Host (GWASH) http://www.staggernation.com/gawsh/ (Organizes results in a collapsing outline by host. Within each host it seems to sort by Google's page rank.) Home grown Google variants cannot be commercial, and cannot query the index more than 1,000 times a day. Since Google is willing to terminate service to entire domains when a user from the domain sends automated queries to the index, this suggests that Google will give developers using the API a privilege that it doesn't give to other users. If you agree that processing FOS as data can provide services above and beyond FOS itself (FOSN for 4/8/02), investigate what the Google API makes possible. http://www.google.com/apis/api_faq.html#gen13 http://www.google.com/apis/api_faq.html#gen7 http://news.com.com/2100-1023-883558.html?tag=3Dcd_mh Google's instructions for downloading and using its API http://www.google.com/apis/ There will be endless Google variations as the word spreads, and I don't plan to cover them all. After this list, which should stimulate your imagination, I'll only cover new variations especially helpful to serious scholarly research. I haven't seen a page collecting links to Google variations. If you have, let me know and I'll link to it here. Meantime, try one of these links to find new variations. ResearchBuzz by Tara Calashain http://www.researchbuzz.com/index.shtml (Tara tracks Google variations. I learned about the three Staggernation variations above from ResearchBuzz.) SearchDay by Chris Sherman http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/ (Chris also tracks Google variations as they appear.) Google search for "google api" http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=3Dnavclient&q=3Dgoogle+api * Postscript. This week AOL dropped Overture and adopted Google as its default search engine. Overture invented the pay-for-rank business model for search engines, which assumes that users are more interested in shopping than research. Overture is the leading search engine with the model, and Google is the leading search engine that has refused to adopt it. From this point of view, the AOL decision is a victory for objective searching over the commercial rigging of search results. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/02/technology/ebusiness/02GOOG.html ---------- Developments * The Open Society Institute (OSI) has announced a grant program in which it will give $100,000 to help open-access journals publish research by authors from 67 developing nations. The grants will defray the costs of processing accepted articles for free online dissemination. Peer-reviewed, open-access journals in any academic field are eligible to apply. This is a pilot program "inspired by the principles of the Budapest Open Access Initiative". Grants will be given in two waves. Applications for the first wave are due by June 14, and for the second wave by September 9. http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y25D521D * The Gates Foundation has given OCLC a $9 million grant to build a technical support portal for organizations (like public libraries) that provide open access to knowledge and information. The portal will focus "managing hardware and software, implementing advanced applications, training staff and patrons, and delivering digital library services." http://makeashorterlink.com/?S384121D (Thanks to LIS News.) * The _Human Nature Review_ (HNR) has created a free, customizable Explorer toolbar for searching online science and scholarship. It comes with codes for a large number of searchable databases and instructions for adding new ones on your own. Among the codes provided are those for PubMed, CogPrints, the MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, AnthroNet, Natural Science Update, FindArticles, the Encylopedia Britannica, Noesis (which I co-edit with Tony Beavers), and more than a dozen others. It also includes a code for Scirus, which searches arXiv, BioMed Central, and all Elsevier ejournals. Users can run searches on a single database or across a list of databases. http://human-nature.com/searchbar.html * In the May 2 _BBC News_, Mark Ward describes how grid computing is helping astronomers. Astrogrid is a unified front end to the many astronomical archives and data sets now online, and a channel to cope with the voluminous data generated by digital telescopes and other instruments. For example, the Visible & Infrared Survey Telescope for Astronomy (Vista) will generate 100 GB of data every day. Astrogrid makes different archives and data sets interoperable through its own metadata standard. The result is that astronomers have access to x-ray, radio, magnetic, infra-red, and optical data on a given celestial object, even if these data must be gathered from different online sources. http://makeashorterlink.com/?J45221EC * In the April 28 _Heise Online_, Stefan Krempl describes the Math-Net Page initiative from the International Mathematics Union (IMU). A Math-Net Page at a university math department web site hosts links to faculty and their online papers in a standardized way that facilitates the collection of the linked pages by special software run by the Math-Net portal. The goal is to produce a free online archive of world mathematical literature, by encouraging mathematicians to post their papers to their department sites and encouraging departments to post Math-Net Pages. Krempl closes with a summary of major FOS initiatives from arXiv and the Public Library of Science to the Budapest Open Access Initiative. (The article is in German.) http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-28.04.02-004/ (Thanks to QuickLinks.) IMU press release on Math-Net Pages (in English, undated) http://www.math-net.org/Math-Net-Press-Release.doc IMU statement endorsing open access, May 2001 (in English) http://elib.zib.de/IMU/IMU_Committees/call_authors.html Nila A. Sathe and two co-authors, "Print versus electronic journals: a preliminary investigation into the effect of journal format on research processes" http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3D100770 St=E9fan Darmoni and five co-authors, "CISMeF-patient: a French counterpart to MEDLINEplus" http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3D100773 Dale Flecker wrote the chapter on preserving digital journals. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub106/periodicals.html * In FOSN for 4/22/02, I cited the February issue of the _ARL Bimonthly Report_ without a URL because the issue was not online at that time. But it's online now. (While dated February, this issue appeared in April.) The issue is devoted to open access and contains the following pieces: http://www.arl.org/newsltr/220/index.html Mary Case, "Promoting Open Access: Developing New Strategies for Managing Copyright and Intellectual Property" http://www.arl.org/newsltr/220/access.html Peter Suber, "Where Does the Free Online Scholarship Movement Stand Today?" http://www.arl.org/newsltr/220/scholar.html (Reprint of my April editorial for _Cortex_.) The Budapest Open Access Initiative (full statement and excerpts from its FAQ) http://www.arl.org/newsltr/220/boai.html http://www.arl.org/newsltr/220/boaifaq.html ("The [BOAI] FAQ is one of the most usefully linked documents your [ARL] editors have ever discovered on the Web.") Welcome to the Free Online Scholarship (FOS) Newsletter May 15, 2002 * Richard Stallman told me that he sees no good reason to use the GPL or copyleft for scientific journal articles (see FOSN for 2/6/02). GLP makes more sense for software manuals or textbooks, where new developments create a need to modify the original text. But articles that report the result of an experiment, or the observations of a scientist, should not be modified. "Protecting the Information Commons: Asserting the Public Interest in Copyright Law and Digital Infrastructure" http://makeashorterlink.com/?K20932BC Scott Burnell's UPI story about the conference http://www.nando.net/technology/story/399236p-3178262c.html Budapest Open Access Initiatve http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ ---------- Why FOS progress has been slow The information commons conference made me think, again, about why progress in the FOS movement has been slow. Progress in achieving FOS has been accelerating, especially in the past two years. But compared to the rate permitted by our opportunities, progress has been slow. All the means to this end are within the control of scientists and scholars themselves and don't depend on legislatures or markets. We needn't wait for anyone to become enlightened except ourselves. So what is slowing us down? Scientists and scholars voluntarily submit their work to journals that do not pay royalties. They can self-archive their preprints and some form of their postprints without copyright problems. If they submit their work to an open-access journal, then they can publish in a peer-reviewed journal, face no copyright problems, and still get open access to their work. So here are authors who consent to dispense with payment, who face no economic loss (and much intangible gain) for allowing the free distribution and copying of their work, and who face no copyright barriers in authorizing open access. Yet open access to science and scholarship is expanding much more slowly than it could. The other movements represented at the conference face more vexing problems than we do: either flat-out copyright (or patent) barriers, or lack of consent from the rightsholders, or both. So if our case is the easy case, why is it so hard? Stevan Harnad calls this question the *big koan*. Here's a whack at an answer. There is no single cause of scholarly sluggishness on FOS, but here are some of the factors that certainly play a role. (1) Unlike librarians, scholars tend not to understand the serials pricing crisis. They tend not to understand the licensing and copyright (contractual and statutory) problems that are laid on top of exorbitant prices to make library access to journals so difficult. They tend not to understand the economics and technology of journal publishing. I don't blame them much. I had to take a large detour from my own research interests to gain the degree of understanding I have now. Scholars are focused on the fascinating first-order problems that attracted them into their disciplines (FOSN for 4/8/02), and their talent is to concentrate. But while their focus on other problems is understandable, they aggravate this problem by ignoring it. These are smart people, yet they still tend to say, "Don't fix what isn't broken," rather than "Which solution is best?" Scholars tend to notice that there are access problems to journal literature when their own library doesn't carry a journal they need, or when nearby libraries will not send a copy by inter-library loan because they don't have permission to copy the electronic edition which has replaced their print edition. But when scholars run into access barriers, they are slow to realize that these are systemic, not the isolated misfortunes of researchers with abstruse topics. There are many good introductions to the dimensions and details of the problem. Here's one of the best. http://www.createchange.org/faculty/issues/quick.html (2) There are several myths and misunderstandings about FOS. The three most common and inimical are that FOS bypasses peer review, that it costs money that cannot be found, and that it violates copyright. If true, these myths would make FOS undesirable, impractical, and illegal. But all three are false, as you know if you've been following this movement for any length of time. If you are new to the issues and haven't already read their full refutation, here are two sources. http://www.arl.org/newsltr/220/scholar.html (scroll to the middle) http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm (especially the section on open access) (3) Scholars want to publish in prestigious journals, most of which are still priced and printed. Open-access journals can be as prestigious as any (see e.g. BMJ). But most open-access journals are new and it takes time for new journals to gather prestige, even if their quality is impeccable from the start. The solution is not to talk authors out of their preference for prestige, but to create more open-access journals, staff them with first-rate editors, and give them time. (4) Scholars have a conflict of interest in their roles as authors and as readers. As authors, they want prestigious journals which for the time being are mostly priced. But as readers they want free online access to full-text articles. In this conflict, authors prevail over readers because authors decide where to submit their articles. For a growing number of authors who realize that open-access journals give them a much wider audience and give their research much greater impact, these benefits outweigh prestige. But there are still many who don't realize that their favorite priced, printed, and prestigious journals have a smaller audience than open-access journals. When this sinks in, and especially when the prestige of open-access journals grows to match their quality, then the conflict will disappear and it will be clear that both authors and readers will benefit from open access. But this will take time. (5) Insofar as authors are forced by career pressures to choose a priced, printed journal over an open-access journal, then the academic reward system is also a part of the problem. Hiring and tenure committees that don't give due weight to free online peer-reviewed journals, regardless of their quality, make it too risky for untenured scholars to become part of the solution. Ironically, junior faculty who face these pressures are the most clued-in and most eager to realize the full potential of the internet. (6) It is still much more the rule than the exception for journals to demand that authors transfer their copyright. But giving a journal the copyright to an article gives it the authority to decide whether access to the article will be closed or open. Since most journals are priced, most will limit access to paying customers. Priced journals wouldn't be access-barriers if they didn't have the authority from copyright to decide whether to permit open access. (7) The transition to open access faces certain obstacles. Priced journals want their revenue, either as profit or to minimize their losses. Open-access journals must persuade a variety of institutions (universities, libraries, foundations, governments) to accept a novel funding model. Even if paying for dissemination costs much less than paying for access, the novelty is a ground for hesitation and the new expense may fall where no expense fell before. I've argued that the transition to an open-access funding model may even create a prisoner's dilemma (FOSN for 1/1/02). (8) There are three vicious circles here that affect journal funding, author incentives, and author opportunities. The first is the prisoner's dilemma in the transition from the old funding model to the new. By paying for the dissemination of articles rather than access to them, universities will realize significant savings. But they may not be able to afford dissemination fees until they can stop paying access fees, and they can't stop paying access fees until the dissemination fee business model has generally prevailed. The second vicious circle is that prestige is an important incentive for authors to submit their articles to certain journals, but new open-access journals can only gain prestige if they can give authors an incentive to submit their articles. The third vicious circle is simply that progress has been slow. This means that there are still comparatively few open-access journals where authors can submit their work, and there are still comparatively few institutional eprint archives offering open access to the research output of their faculty. Finally, I'd like to emphasize that these are explanations for the slow rate of change, not grounds for pessimism. Explaining why the chicken is on this side of the road doesn't mean that it can't walk to the other side. There are many grounds for optimism; just look at the back issues of this newsletter. * Postscript. The beauty of open access makes it obvious, and its obviousness makes it beautiful. Whichever way one approaches it, one will be puzzled why it hasn't spread like fire. It's even more puzzling because open access to scientific and scholarly journal articles is the low-hanging fruit of the larger open-access movement. It's a much easier case than open access to other kinds of digital content, such as software, music, film, or non-academic literature, because scientists and scholars willingly relinquish payment in order to publish their research, advance their careers, and contribute to knowledge. There are roughly two kinds of higher-hanging fruit: (1) open access through copyright reform, and (2) open access through the consent of authors who are not yet consenting. If we can we roll back recent copyright extensions, that would move many copyrighted works into he public domain. If we can restore the first-sale doctrine, then libraries may purchase digital content and not just license it, and may then provide open access to the copies they purchase. If open-access to novels really provides a net boost to the sales of their print editions (FOSN for 4/22/02), or if open access to digital music gives a net boost to the sales of the same music on priced CD's (FOSN for 5/6/02), then more novelists and musicians may be persuaded to consent to open access. We know why these two kinds of open access are distant prospects: copyright reform is hard, and persuading profit-seeking creators to consent to open-access is hard. But our case is the low-hanging fruit. Even if it's not easy to pick, it's easier. Right? So why hasn't progress been faster? What's your answer to the big koan? If my answer is incomplete, what am I leaving out? FOS discussion forum http://www.topica.com/lists/fos-forum/read (Anyone may read; only subscribers may post; subscription is free.) * SPARC has entered a partnership with BioMed Central (BMC), in which it will help BMC ensure long-term free online access to its line of 50 journals in biomedicine. BMC is committed to open access to all its journals now and in the future, regardless of the future circumstances or ownership of BMC itself. In its press release, SPARC praised BMC for its commitment to open access to scientific research, its bold business model, and its concern for sustainability. http://makeashorterlink.com/?G55621ED * The National Institutes of Health has become an institutional member of BMC. This is the latest in a series of important scientific institutions which have endorsed BMC's business model, which provides open access for readers and asks authors or their sponsors to bear the costs. http://www.biblio-tech.com/UKSG/SI_PD.cfm?PID=3D10&Alert=3D225 * Perseus is now an OAI service provider. Perseus is a free online archive of digital texts from Ancient Greece and Rome, and more recently from other cultures and periods. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/PR/oai.ann.html * The Open Archives Initiative (OAI) has released the beta of version 2.0 of its protocol for metadata harvesting. It is now available for downloading. The OAI metadata harvesting protocol is the standard for interoperable FOS archives. http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/openarchivesprotocol.htm * FAIR has announced its winning applicants (see FOSN for 1/23/02). FAIR is JISC's Focus on Access to Institutional Resources, a program to support access to institutional content in higher education. FAIR will fund 14 projects. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/dner/development/programmes/fair.html X4L has also announced its winning applicants (see FOSN for 1/23/02). X4L is a JISC program to develop and repurpose digital content for teaching and learning at the university level. X4L will fund 22 projects. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/dner/development/programmes/x4l.html * The Research Libraries Group (RLG) has released a new version Eureka, which uses OpenURL to provide context-sensitive links to materials held by the user's library. Eureka uses RLG databases and OpenURL to digital resources licensed by a client libraries. http://www.rlg.org/pr/pr2002-openurl.html * NASA has put online the proceedings of the Workshop on Experimental OAI-Based Digital Library Systems (Darmstadt, September 8, 2001). http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2002/tm/NASA-2002-tm211638.pdf * The National Centre for Science Information and the Indian Institute of Science have put online the proceedings of their workshop on Developing Digital Libraries using Open Source Software (April 15-20, Bangalore). The workshop focused on two open source packages, Eprints and Greenstone. http://144.16.72.189/opendl/ * The Resource Discovery Network (RDN) conducted a user survey from September 2001 to February 2002. The main question was how users evaluated its quality. RDN has now posted the results online. http://www.rdn.ac.uk/publications/evaluation/evalreport02.pdf * The EC's Interactive Electronic Publishing sector is calling for scholars interested in contributing to a study, "Future of Electronic Publishing Towards 2010". The deadline for tenders is June 17. http://www.elpub.org/base02t0063.htm#foe * In the May 13 _Wall Street Journal_ Phyllis Plitch profiles Pamela Samuelson, a crusader for copyright reforms that will support an information commons and the public domain. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1020884132662876320,00.html (WSJ is normally closed to non-subscribers, like me, but this article is open.) * In the April 29 _Times Online_, Jim McCue describes the problem of archiving the internet: its large size, its continuous change and growth, the ephemeral nature of much of its content, and (as always) copyright. The story is based on an interview with Lynne Brindley, chief executive of the British Library. With the help of IBM, The British Library is starting an experiment to archive British content. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-281852,00.html (Thanks to Shelflife.) Conferences If you plan to attend one of the following conferences, please share your observations with us through our discussion forum. (Conferences marked by two asterisks are new since the last issue.) * Copyright for Beginners [among librarians and information professionals] http://www.cilip.org.uk/employ/c0937.html London, May 15 * A Day in the Life of an [Electronic] Journal Publisher http://www.uksg.org/conferences/2002/16_05_02.html Chichester, May 16 * Shaping the Network Society: Patterns for Participation, Action and Change http://cpsr.org/conferences/diac02/ Seattle, May 16-19 * National Conference for Digital Government Research http://www.dgrc.org/dgrc/dgo2002/ Los Angeles, May 19-22 * Libraries in the Digital Age 2002 http://www.ffzg.hr/infoz/lida/ Dubrovnik, May 21-26 * Taking the Plunge: Moving from Print to Electronic Journals http://www.uksg.org/conferences/2002/22_05_02.html London, May 22 * Online Submission and Peer Review. Sponsored by the Journals Committee of the Professional & Scholarly Publishing Division of the AAP. http://www.pspcentral.org/committees/journals/journals_flyer.doc New York, May 22 * CAiSE '02. Advanced Information Systems Engineering http://www.cs.toronto.edu/caise02/ Toronto, May 27-31 * Workshop on Personalization Techniques in Electronic Publishing on the Web: Trends and Perspectives http://www.dimi.uniud.it/~mizzaro/AH2002/ Malaga, Spain, May 28 ** Applications of Metadata. Sponsored by the Electronic Publishing Specialist Group of the British Computer Society. http://www.epsg.org.uk/meetings/metadata2002/ London, May 29 * Society for Scholarly Publishing (AAP) http://www.sspnet.org/public/articles/index.cfm?Cat=3D5 Boston, May 29-31 * Fair Use Seminar http://www.acteva.com//booking.cfm?bevaID=3D21113 Portland, Oregon, May 30 * Off the Wall and Online: Providing Web Access to Cultural Collections http://www.nedcc.org/owol/owol1.htm Lexington, Massachusetts, May 30-31 * Multimedia Content and Tools: Towards Information and Knowledge Systems http://www.elpub.org/agenda23.htm London, May 30-31 * Advancing Knowledge: Expanding Horizons for Information Science http://www.fis.utoronto.ca/cais-acsi2002/ Toronto, May 30 - June 1 * Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2002 http://ce.byu.edu/cw/etd2002/ Provo, Utah, May 30 - June 1 * International Association of Technological University Libraries Annual Conference: Partnerships, Consortia, and 21st Century Library Science http://www.iatul.org/ Kansas City, June 2-6 * Digital Behavior: European Forum on Digital Content Creation, Management, and Distribution http://www.digi-b.de/ Cologne, June 4-8 * DELOS Workshop on Evaluation of Digital Libraries: Testbeds, Measurements, and Metrics http://www.sztaki.hu/conferences/deval/ Budapest, June 6-7 * Social Implicatoins of Information and Communication Technology http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/herkert/istas02.html Raleigh, North Carolina, June 6-8 * Electronic Resources and the Social Role of Libraries in the Future http://www.iliac.org/crimea2002/ Sudak, Ukraine, June 8-16 * First International Semantic Web Conference http://iswc.semanticweb.org/ Sardinia, June 9-12 * Frontiers of Ownership in the Digital Economy: Information Patents, Database Protection and the Politics of Knowledge http://cip.umd.edu/IFRI.htm Paris, June 10-11 * IASSIST 2002: Accelerating Access, Collaboration, and Dissemination http://ropercenter.uconn.edu/iassist2002/ June 10-15 * The Commons in an Age of Globalisation. Ninth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property http://www.iascp2002.org/ Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, June 17-21 * Informing Science and IT Education http://is2002.com/ Cork, June 19-21 * 8th International Conference of European University Information Systems http://www.fe.up.pt/eunis2002/ Porto, June 19-22 * Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers: Exploiting the Online Environment for Maximum Advantage http://www.ukolug.org.uk/meetings/meetings.htm#conf Birmingham, June 20-21 * Transforming Serials: The Revolution Continues http://www.nasig.org/wm/ Williamsburg, Virginia, June 20-23 ** Delivering Content to Universities and Colleges: The Challenges of the New Information Environment. Sponsored by JISC, PA, and ALPSP. http://www.alpsp.org/PALS02.pdf London, June 21 * Choices and Strategies for Preservation of the Collective Memory http://archives.dobbiaco2002.it/convegno-e.htm Bolzano, Italy, June 25-29 * CIG Seminar: REVEALed: The Truth Behind the National Database of Resources in Accessible Formats http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/bib-man/cig-2002.html London, June 26 * 4th International JISC/CNI Conference http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/events/jisc-cni-2002/ Edinburgh, June 26-27 * Digitisation Summer School for Cultural Heritage Professionals http://www.hatii.arts.gla.ac.uk/DigiSS02/ Glasgow, June 30 - July 5 ---------- The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter is supported by a grant from the Open Society Institute. http://www.osi.hu/infoprogram/ This is the Free Online Scholarship Newsletter (ISSN 1535-7848). Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, you may subscribe by signing up at the FOS home page. FOS home page, general information, subscriptions, editorial position http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm FOS Newsletter, subscriptions, back issues http://www.topica.com/lists/suber-fos FOS Discussion Forum, subscriptions, postings http://www.topica.com/lists/fos-forum Guide to the FOS Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/guide.htm Sources for the FOS Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/sources.htm Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Copyright (c) 2002, Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/copyrite.htm