Peter, You're absolutely correct in your observation that our differences are minute, in the scheme of things. Nonetheless, I think I disagree with you that we have Open Access if just the price barrier is lifted. I don't think it's a question of archiving and OAI-compliance (or other sure-fire findability-tools) making OA more useful, but these things making OA useful and worth having at all. To take your medicine analogy: the drug may be safe and effective, but it's useless if the patient can't even find it, let alone obtain it (even if it is free).
Anyway, I do accept that there is perhaps more than one way to ensure permanent findability and that 'OAI-compliance' and 'archiving' may need to be made more generic in a definition. As my colleague Matt Cockerill pointed out (though not on this list), "the point is that *some* programmatic means to allow article data to flow between different sites is needed. If the structured content is trapped in the context of a specific website and cannot be reliably programmatically extracted and worked with, then one of they key potential benefits of open access is lost." He is right here. The *benefits* of Open Access are the issues the definition should follow. Otherwise Open Access is something for its own sake, like l'art pour l'art. Best, Jan