* Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>, le 16-11-10, a écrit: > Bernard, > > The Green Road is not generally conceived of as "publishing" unless you > take the work "publishing" in a very general sense, such as "making > public". Stevan Harnad, in fact, has always carefully separated the > Green Road (self-archiving - not self-publishing) from both vanity > presses and publishing reforms. I agree with him on these two points, > even though I also believe that repositories could make moves that would > bring them much closer to a publisher-function (to transpose the > author-function of Michel Foucault). But I do not want to re-open this > can of worms here. > > When most of us speak about the Green or Gold Road to Open Access, we > generally mean free access and free reuse within some well-defined > limits (e.g. responsible use) that the Bethesda Declaration (among > others) tried to spell out). In other words, OA is more than simply an > ability to read at no costs. OA is an ability to reuse, incorporate, > etc... Again, think about the GPL in free software and the meaning of > "free" (as in "free speech") in this context. The power of remixing is > at the heart of the free software movement, and it is also at the heart > of a healthy scientific effort. It extends to the notuion of a vigorous > cultural evolution.
Thank you for the clarification We are trying to define a notion of open work, that is somewhat fuzzy, a bit in the spirit of what you say. > > The OA movement does not deal with orphan works in any central way. It > deals with scholarly and scientific works where the issue of orphan > works does not appear to be central (at least I have never seen it > mentioned in this context). I realized that ... I was only saying that there are threats to open access that you may not be aware of. This is one of them. > Your collecting societies in France obviously want to control both > access and re-use of orphan works. However, as Larry Lessig has pointed > out, this is not necessarily all bad provided that: > > 1. This helps clearly identify orphan works (and as a consequence, it > also helps define the public domain); mumble ... > 2. This removes the problem of identifying rights owners; no ... they want the owners to be searched first > 3. The fees collected are modest or even minimal. that is precisely what they want to avoid. They are after what they call "the acceptance of payment" ("le consentement à payer") ... they dont want people to be used to low prices. > > My impression is that you should fight this battle with the use of > Creative Common licenses, rather than with the OA example. This would > provide more wiggle room to negotiate an acceptable solution for orphan > works. And you might remind your negotiating partners that if France > puts too many restrictions (economic or legal) on orphan works, it will > simply make the projection of French culture worldwide that much more > difficult. In other words, French authorities will shoot themselves in > the foot. I know they are quite good at doing this regularly, to the > point that i suspect some form of masochism is at work here, but > nonetheless... Using a suitable CC license on orphan works could lead to > free re-use of these works so long as it is not commercial. Fees could > be collected for commercial re-use does not work legally. But I agree regarding their feets. They are like their thinking : full of holes. I am trying something else ... similar result. http://www.datcha.net/ecrits/liste/orphan-gbs.pdf But one thing I am now sure of : orphan works are the wrong concept, a red herring. We need registration. And I am sure it can be free. Bernard > > Jean-Claude > > Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 15:52 +0100, Bernard Lang a écrit : > > > > > Thank you Jean-Claude > > > > But when you speak of the green and gold road, and their form of publishing, > > does it imply that the accessible works come with these rights granted ... > > > > or is it only seen as a way to get there. > > > > I means that if those rights are given, does it matter much how the > > work is initially made available. > > > > With apologies if my questions are silly. I am missing a link somewhere. > > > > I do need to clarify these issues, as France seems intent (I do hope > > they fail miserably) to have an orphan law, that would give control > > over works to collective societies, to manage and make money from > > (theoretically in the author's name). One of the explicit purposes is > > to kill free works as much as possible (unfair competition). > > > > This is already pretty bad. > > > > Next news is that the definition of orphan works ignores the existence > > of a licence or anything. Only reaching the author matters. > > > > In other words, the open access publications of an academic who has > > retired without leaving an address might cease to be open access. > > They did not say either that the law is only applicable to French > > works. > > > > So far it was only a law for still images, but they were very clear > > that the intents is to expend it to all things printable. > > > > Why still images .. because that gives them an excuse to get started, > > as photos are often used illegally by pretending the author cannot be > > found. But there are better way of solving that problem. > > > > As I want at least to have open access works excluded, I need a > > definition, that will be general enough without encompassing > > everything on the net. > > > > I have various references, but all in French. > > > > Bernard > > > > > > PS The promoter of that law explained to me that violating the moral > > rights of an author (by preventing use of his works without a mandate > > from the author) is OK if done with a state mandate, i.e., with legal > > permission. > > > > > > > > * Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>, le 16-11-10, a > > écrit: > > > Bernard, > > > > > > I will simply quote the Bethesda statement on OA: > > > > > > > > > 1. Definition of Open Access Publication > > > > > > > > > An Open Access Publication[1] is one that meets the following two > > > conditions: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > > > > I hope this helps you sort out these ideas. > > > > > > OA is more than simple and cost-less access; it implies the same kinds > > > of freedoms that a GPL ensures for software. > > > > > > Much of OA thinking was inspired by the free software movement. > > > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > > > > > Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 13:21 +0100, Bernard Lang a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a distinction between papers that are just openly accessible, > > > > and papers that can be freely reproduced on other sites, or other > > > > media in your classifications. > > > > > > > > I am trying o identifi the concept of an open work. If it is simply > > > > something that I can access, that qualifies the whole of the Internet. > > > > > > > > But can I make copies, preserve it or present it in some other form. > > > > Who has enough rights so that the conditions of work availability can > > > > evolve with the state of the art in documents access, presentation, > > > > organization. > > > > > > > > What we do now in not the end of progress in publication. My concern > > > > is the future. > > > > > > > > Why do I worry : because I spend much time working on orphan works > > > > issues. I am trying to determine when the rightsholder is needed to > > > > ensure adequate life and survival of a work. Being accessible for > > > > reading is just not enough. > > > > > > > > Bernard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>, le 14-11-10, a > > > > écrit: > > > > > Indeed, Larry! > > > > > > > > > > And Stevan Harnad is quite right is refusing to equate Open Access > > > > > with > > > > > the Gold Road. > > > > > > > > > > In fact, Open Access is made up of two approaches: OA publishing or > > > > > "Gold Road" and self-archiving or "Green Road". And both roads are > > > > > valuable, arguably equally (although differently) valuable. > > > > > > > > > > As for Wallace-Evans, one only has to see how he characterized Robert > > > > > K. > > > > > Merton ("most pusillanimous"... ???) to realize that the barbarians > > > > > are > > > > > at the gates. It is a pity to see a priodical like Nation fall this > > > > > low. > > > > > I used to like reading Nation when I was a student. > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 10:21 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > > > > > > One can sympathize with Larry Lessig's frustration in "An Obvious > > > > > > Distinction": > > > > > > > > > > > > LL: > > > > > > "In 2010, [for David Wallace-Evans] to suggest [in a > > > > > > 6000-word review in The Nation] that [the Creative > > > > > > Commons movement] 'exhort[s]⦠piracy and the > > > > > > plundering of culture'... betrays not just sloppy > > > > > > thinking [but] extraordinary ignorance⦠[and lack > > > > > > of] > > > > > > respect for what has been written⦠This terrain > > > > > > has > > > > > > been plowed a hundred times in the past decade⦠> > > > > > Reading is the first step to⦠respect for what has > > > > > > been written... Reading is what Wallace-Wells has > > > > > > not > > > > > > done well." > > > > > > > > > > > > Larry tries to correct Wallace-Evans's 6000 sloppy words with 878 > > > > > > carefully chosen ones of his own. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me try to atone for my own frequent long-windedness by trying to > > > > > > put it even more succinctly (20 words): > > > > > > > > > > > > Creative Commons' goal > > > > > > is to protect > > > > > > creators' give-away rights -- > > > > > > not consumers' > > > > > > (or 2nd-party copyright-holders') > > > > > > rip-off rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > (Reader's of the American Scientist Open Access Forum may have a > > > > > > sense > > > > > > of déjà lu about this since at least as far back as December > > > > > > 2000: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1048.html > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Harnad, Stevan (2000/2001/2003/2004) For Whom the Gate > > > > > > Tolls? Published as: (2003) Open Access to Peer-Reviewed > > > > > > Research Through Author/Institution Self-Archiving: > > > > > > Maximizing > > > > > > Research Impact by Maximizing Online Access. In: Law, Derek > > > > > > & > > > > > > Judith Andrews, Eds. Digital Libraries: Policy Planning and > > > > > > Practice. Ashgate Publishing 2003. [Shorter version: Harnad > > > > > > S. > > > > > > (2003) Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 49: 337-342.] and > > > > > > in: > > > > > > (2004) Historical Social Research (HSR) 29:1. [French > > > > > > version: > > > > > > Harnad, S. (2003) Cielographie et cielolexie: Anomalie > > > > > > post-gutenbergienne et comment la resoudre. In: Origgi, G. & > > > > > > Arikha, N. (eds) Le texte a l'heure de l'Internet. > > > > > > Bibliotheque Centre Pompidou: 77-103. > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > The persistent "piracy" canard calls to mind others like it, > > > > > > foremost > > > > > > among them being: > > > > > > "OA ⡠Gold OA (publishing)"... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, > > > > > > S., > > > > > > Gingras, Y, Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E. > > > > > > (2004) The green and the gold roads to Open Access. Nature > > > > > > Web > > > > > > Focus > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > > > > Professeur titulaire > > > > > Littérature comparée > > > > > Université de Montréal > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > > Professeur titulaire > > > Littérature comparée > > > Université de Montréal > > > > > -- > Jean-Claude Guédon > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal -- Après la bulle Internet, la bulle financière ... Et bientôt la bulle des brevets http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/revue/IMG/pdf/article_HS7RL2.pdf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-kahin/the-patent-bubble_b_129232.html la gestion des catastrophes comme principe de gouvernement bernard.l...@datcha.net ,_ /\o \o/ gsm +33 6 6206 1693 http://www.datcha.net/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ tel +33 1 3056 1693 Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX