[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

If the concern is that all the world's libraries can no longer afford to collect scholarship then the nature of the license is an irrelevance - we'll have bigger problems to worry about. The simple fact is that the Springer OA articles published to date will remain OA whoever purchases the com

[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

Jan, I do not think it does, provided that the *wherever* quest for libre that you suggest does not get confused with the *absolute need* to get libre and nothing else. What I think concerns Stevan is that some people get so hung up on libre as a result of the systematic nature of the *wherever* t

[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Jan Velterop wrote: Jean-Claude, > > I get that. But I have a question that I don't think has been answered > yet. I'll phrase the question differently: Do you think that going for > libre wherever we can, impedes the chances of achieving gratis where libre > is n

[GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost from Gratis to CC-BY

On 2012-10-10, at 12:57 PM, Prof. T.D. Wilson wrote: > Steven Harnad is certainly right on this issue, but the cause > of it is the altogether impracticable definition of "open access" > by the BOAI - the notion that authors should give up, effectively, > ALL commercial rights to their work, al

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

Just a few points: PMR: "So long as one person or institution clones ("forks") the content it is potentially saved as open for all time. And although the world cannot rely on me and Ross to preserve BMC content, this can and is bening done by national libraries". HM: Agreed that CC-BY gives p

[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

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 > part

[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

[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

Jean-Claude, I get that. But I have a question that I don't think has been answered yet. I'll phrase the question differently: Do you think that going for libre wherever we can, impedes the chances of achieving gratis where libre is not currently realistically possible? Best, Jan On 10 Oct 2

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Heather Morrison wrote: > On 2012-10-10, at 10:05 AM, David Prosser wrote: > > Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run > scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see > any implications. I guess any new ow

[GOAL] RE : Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

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 ultim

[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 discussi

[GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost from Gratis to CC-BY

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jan Velterop wrote: 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

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

On 2012-10-10, at 10:05 AM, David Prosser wrote: Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see any implications. I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is not profitable enough, in wh

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

Universities could form a consortium, pool whatever they spend on Springer, do a leveraged buyout of the company, and run it as a nonprofit... (I am NOT saying it is a good idea.) --Eric. http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 Telephone: (626) 376-5415 Skype: efvande

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

Remember, please, that PLoS is a not for profit organization and, while this is not an ironclad guarantee of its long-term adherence to its founding principles, it is very different than a for-profit publisher owned by a large multi-national company obligated to maximize return for its investors.

[GOAL] RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

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

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see any implications. I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is not profitable enough, in which case they will either a) put prices up and ris

[GOAL] Springer for sale - implications for open access?

According to Mark Kleinman, the private equity owners of Springer (EQT, a private investment company in Sweden and the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore) are making moves to solicit offers to purchase Springer. Details: http://news.sky.com/story/995576/academic-publishing-giant-sprin

[GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost from Gratis 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 foun

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

Steve, I wasn't clear. The 'similarity' refers to the idea of a repository for depositing preprints, as opposed to the published version of record. That's all. Don't read too much in the example. ArXiv allows CC-BY-NC-SA, which I don't advocate. But arXiv is just an example I had in mind. If Ep

[GOAL] On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost from Gratis to CC-BY

** 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):

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

I have no problem with this model, assuming that there is no compulsion from the RCs to move to the second stage of publishing in a journal. However, if there is a possibility that many articles will only go to stage 1 and are deposited in a repository without going on to be published in a journ

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

Jan, What similarities with arXiv are you referring to? Arxiv allows an author to attach specific CC licences (two are allowable); EPrints presents the author with this option at deposit. But it is not mandated, and how commonly is this option taken by authors, in arXiv or any other repository?

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY: the wrong goal for open access, and neither necessary nor sufficient for data and text mining

This brings to mind the idea of the data paper, described here http://www.pensoft.net/J_FILES/Pensoft_Data_Publishing_Policies_and_Guidelines.pdf This seems to have been pioneered by this publisher. There is also a data paper journal in archaeology, JOAD http://openarchaeologydata.metajnl.com/sub

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

Hopefully germane to this (developing) position, I've pushed for a CC-BY use licence on all content exposed through the soon to be launched Research Portal/IR at QUB. The leverage provided by RCUK's strong position on this is at least one positive during what has been a difficult summer for policy

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

Maybe some publication repositories who would be ready to play the game, at institutional, national or thematic level, backed up by eminent and open (!) champions of the cause. Laurent Le 10 oct. 2012 à 13:15, Jan Velterop a écrit : > The only thing I'm not clear about is who the "we all" are w

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

Peter, It would simplify things a lot. So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. This has many similarities w

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

Me to - this is the fundamental blocker when we try to explore full text content exchange between repositories. Jo On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Laurent Romary wrote: > I would definitely support this. > Laurent > > Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY: the wrong goal for open access, and neither necessary nor sufficient for data and text mining

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Dan Stowell wrote: > Hi all, > > Some points re this discussion: > > Helen wrote: > Heather?? > > 1.CC-BY is not necessary for data and text-mining. Internet search > engines such as google and social media companies do extensive data and > text mining, and

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY: the wrong goal for open access, and neither necessary nor sufficient for data and text mining

Great points Dan, thank you * some sort of licensing IS generally necessary for data and text mining. * The Open Database Licence also appears to assert "that digital material must be made available in a readily machine-interpretable form" Perhaps academic works and the Open Access movement migh

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY: the wrong goal for open access, and neither necessary nor sufficient for data and text mining

Hi all, Some points re this discussion: Helen wrote: > 1.CC-BY is not necessary for data and text-mining. Internet search > engines such as google and social media companies do extensive data and text > mining, and they do not limit themselves to CC-BY material. This is true even > in the

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

I would definitely support this. Laurent Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : > > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop wrote: > There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan > Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copy