"This sort of insistence on One Special License is exactly what is limiting the adoption of open access."
Really? Any evidence? I'd welcome it if your definition of open access found universal acceptance. Would be a great step forward. Jan Velterop > On 22 Jun 2015, at 12:34, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> wrote: > > > as I would define it > > And I would define it as *more* free than licenses thatg allow people to > charge money for access to the document. > > This sort of insistence on One Special License is exactly what is limiting > the adoption of open access. > > -- Stephen > > From: boai-forum-boun...@ecs.soton.ac.uk > [mailto:boai-forum-boun...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop > Sent: June-22-15 7:48 AM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Cc: boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk > Subject: [BOAI] Re: [GOAL] a chronology about open access > > Nice chronology of open access. Unfortunately CC-BY-NC-SA, so itself not full > open access as I would define it (though better than pay-walled, obviously). > > Jan Velterop > > On 22 Jun 2015, at 10:32, marie lebert <marie.leb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear all: > > https://marielebert.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/openaccesschronology/ > > Best regards from France, > > Marie > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
