Perhaps all Sally means here is that she thinks it would be more useful if open-access ("gold") journals did not use the creative-commons license, and instead, apart from providing immediate, permanent, toll-free, non-gerrymandered, online access to the full-text, the journal required *exclusive* copyright transfer for its sale in derivative works.
I'd say: No harm in that; go ahead! There was never any need for the creative-commons license here anyway! Open-access provision was all that was needed -- whether via the golden road or the green one. (But again, what market is there likely to be for derivative works when the full-text is forever freely available online?) Stevan Harnad > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Sally Morris wrote: > >sm> I think it is perfectly reasonable (and in no way a denial of Open Access) >sm> for a publisher to wish to retain the right to sell derivative copies of a >sm> work, even if in its original form it is made freely available. > > This is indeed perfectly reasonable and correct, and in no way a denial > of Open Access. > > (But if the original form of a work is freely available online, it is > not clear what market there would be for derivative copies...) > >sm> After all, they've got to recover their costs somehow - and if they >sm> recover more from other sources, they will not need to ask authors to >sm> pay so much. > > This sentence is far less clear than the prior one, and appears to be > conflating > the case where open-access to the work is being provided by self-archiving > an article that has been published in a toll-access ("green") journal with > the case where open-access to the woork is being provided by publishing > it in an open-access ("gold") journal. > > If the sentence referred to self-archiving green journal articles, > then the authors are not paying anything (the green journals are still > charging access tolls). > > If the sentence was referring to publishing articles in gold (open-access) > journals, then author/institution publication fees are paying the costs. > > There might conceivably be additional revenue to be made from > selling derivative works, which could then lower the gold journal's > author/institution fees, but (as noted) who would want to pay for > derivative works if the full-text was already available free for all > online? > > Many gold journals are using or planning to use the "creative commons" > license, which (as I understand it) allows anyone to publish derivative > works from the open-access work. That would of course include its gold > publisher > too. So no further right needs to be retained by the gold publisher in that > case. > > Stevan Harnad > > NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open > access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at > the American Scientist Open Access Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03): > > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html > Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org > > Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy: > BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access > journal whenever one exists. > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals > BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable > toll-access journal and also self-archive it. > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml > http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php >