On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Sally Morris wrote:
I think it is perfectly reasonable (and in no way a denial of Open Access)
for a publisher to wish to retain the right to sell derivative copies of a
work, even if in its original form it is made freely available.
This is indeed perfectly reasonable
Perhaps all Sally means here is that she thinks it would be more useful
if open-access (gold) journals did not use the creative-commons
license, and instead, apart from providing immediate, permanent,
toll-free, non-gerrymandered, online access to the full-text, the journal
required *exclusive*
Dear Stevan:
I spoke about open access at the Annual Meeting of
INSA [Indian national Science Academy] and the
Centenary Celebration of the National Library of India
held at the Asiatic Society, Bombay. The talks were
well received.
We raised the point that although the Indian Institute
of
Stevan-
I couldn't disagree more. You are redefining open access to be no more than
free access. For many of us involved in open access the ability to reuse and
republish text is a critical part of making optimal use of the scientific
literature. PLoS chose the creative commons license in order
~On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Michael Eisen wrote:
sh Perhaps all Sally means here is that she thinks it would be more useful
sh if open-access (gold) journals did not use the creative-commons
sh license, and instead, apart from providing immediate, permanent,
sh toll-free, non-gerrymandered, online
