[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
always seemed to me that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not reach the ideal solution right away. 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. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. Jan Velterop On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free online access and not more. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their length would be years, not months. 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little OA). 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a forced immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY... 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and Green CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action. 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that motivates the quest for CC-BY!): 11. And the very real threat of legal action facing Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors and Green CC-BY mandates by institutions (unlike the bogus threat of legal action against Gratis Green self-archiving and Gratis Green mandates) would of course put
[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
Jean-Claude, Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal goal? If so, on what basis? Best, Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not reach the ideal solution right away. 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. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. Jan Velterop On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free online access and not more. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their length would be years, not months. 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little OA). 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a forced immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY... 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and Green CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action. 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that motivates the quest for CC-BY!): 11. And the very real threat of legal
[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
Hello, As far as I understand english, it seems that Jean-Claude says exactly the contrary : Having gratis access is a first goal that doesn't impede having free (re-utilisable) acces after. For one time Jean-Claude strategically agree with Stevan, I only can clap my hands. Hervé Le Crosnier Le 10/10/2012 19:51, Jan Velterop a écrit : Jean-Claude, Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal goal? If so, on what basis? Best, Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not reach the ideal solution right away. 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. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. Jan Velterop On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free online access and not more. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their length would be years, not months. 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little OA). 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a forced immediate
