On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude <
jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote:

> Jan,
>
> Please read again what I wrote. I repeat:
>
> "The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is
> whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this
> particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for
> libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre."
>
>
 I hate to use "libre"  in an OA context as it's operationally meaningless.
You could probably argue that most Green is already OA-libre as it removes
"some" permission barriers (e.g. the permission to copy for dark-archival).
So I suggest we use BOAI or CC-BY in further discussions.

The problem is that this is a serial approach and suffers from at least:
* it takes at least twice as long
* the world doesn't stand still.

Let's hypothesize that we could achieve 80% green (visible Green, not
hidden AlmostVisible) in 7 years' time. (I think that's optimistic). Are we
then "allowed" to initiate a CC-BY activity? And by that time the nature of
publication will have changed dramatically (because if it doesn't academia
will be seriously out of step with this the philosophy and practice of this
century).

We have to proceed in parallel. No-one - not even SH - can predict the
future accurately. I believe that Green-CC-BY is possible and that if we do
it on a coherent positive basis it can work. There is no legal reason why
we cannot archive Green CC-BY and it is not currently explicitly prevented
by any publisher I know of.  Try it - rapidly - and see what happens. My
guess is that a lot of publishers will let it go forward.

The publishers own the citation space. It is their manuscript which is the
citable one. Green-CC-BY doesn't remove that. Actually it makes it better
because it will increase citations through all the enhancements we can add
to re-usable manuscripts.

And I will state again that for my purposes (and those of many others)
Green CC-BY gives me everything I want without , I believe, destroying the
publishers' market.

We are in a period of very rapid technical and social change and we need to
be actively changing the world of scholarship, not waiting for others to
constrain our future.

P.


-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Reply via email to