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 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 an end to authors' providing >>> Green OA and institutions' mandating Green OA. >>> >>> 12. In theory, funders, unlike institutions, can mandate whatever they >>> like, since they are paying for the research: But if a funder Gold OA >>> mandate like Finch/RCUK's -- that denies fundees the right to publish in >>> any journal that does not offer either Gold CC-BY or Gratis-Green with at >>> most a 6-12 month embargo, and that only allows authors to pick Green if >>> the journal does not offer Gold -- is already doomed to author resentment, >>> resistance and non-compliance, then adding the constraint that any Green >>> must be CC-BY would be to court outright researcher rebellion. >>> >>> In short, the pre-emptive insistence upon CC-BY OA, if recklessly and >>> irrationally heeded, would bring the (already slow) progress toward OA, and >>> the promise of progress, to a grinding halt. >>> >>> Finch/RCUK's bias toward paid Gold over cost-free Green was clearly a >>> result of self-interested publisher lobbying. But if it were compounded by >>> a premature and counterproductive insistence on CC-BY for all by a small >>> segment of the researcher community, then the prospects of OA (both Gratis >>> and CC-BY), so fertile if we at last take the realistic, pragmatic course >>> of mandating Gratis Green OA globally first, would become as fallow as they >>> have been for the past two decades, for decades to come. >>> >>> Some quote/comments follow below: >>> >>> Jan Velterop: We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was >>> the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could >>> deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective >>> of the publisher's views. >>> >>> I said -- because it's true, and two decades' objective evidence shows it >>> -- that authors can deposit the refereed, final draft with no realistic >>> threat of copyright action from the publisher. >>> >>> JV: If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence >>> to the manuscript version. >>> >>> Nothing of the sort. Author self-archiving to provide free online access >>> (Gratis Green OA) is one thing -- claiming and dispensing re-use and >>> republication rights (CC-BY) is quite another. >>> >>> JV: If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open >>> access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, >>> published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by >>> Stevan Harnad is invalid. >>> >>> Incorrect. Authors can make their refereed final drafts free for all online >>> without the prospect of legal action from the publisher, but not with a >>> CC-BY license to re-use and re-publish. >>> >>> Moreover, for authors who elect to comply with publisher embargoes on Green >>> Gratis OA, there is the option of depositing in Closed Access and relying >>> on the Almost-OA Button to provide eprint-requesters with individual >>> eprints during the embargo. This likewise does not come with CC-BY rights. >>> >>> JV: Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be >>> deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence >>> his U-turn, I don't know. >>> >>> No U-turn whatsoever. Just never the slightest implication from me that >>> anything more than free online access was intended. >>> >>> JV: But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also >>> means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach >>> the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author, >>> as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do >>> is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the >>> repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't >>> like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply >>> the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. >>> >>> The above is extremely unrealistic and counterproductive policy advice to >>> institutions and funders. >>> >>> If an OA mandate is gratuitously upgraded to CC-BY it just means that most >>> authors will be unable to get their papers published in their journal of >>> choice if they comply with the mandate. So authors will not comply with the >>> mandate, and the mandate will fail. >>> >>> Peter Murray-Rust: If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm >>> for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I >>> can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they >>> fight anyway >>> >>> The downside is that authors won't fight, and hence OA itself will lose the >>> global Gratis Green OA that is fully within its reach, and stay in the >>> non-OA limbo (neither Gratis nor CC-BY, neither Green nor Gold) in which >>> most research still is today -- and has been for two decades. >>> >>> And the irony is that -- speaking practically rather than ideologically -- >>> the fastest and surest prospect for both CC-BY and Gold is to first quickly >>> reach global Gratis Green OA. Needlessly over-reaching can undermine all of >>> OA's objectives. >>> >>> PMR: It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It >>> is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at >>> all. >>> >>> On the contrary: raising the Gratis Green 6-12 goalposts to immediate Green >>> CC-BY would make the Finch/RCUK a pure hybrid-Gold mandate and nothing >>> else. And its failure would be a resounding one. >>> >>> PMR: And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week >>> >>> That would certainly be a prominent historic epitaph for OA. I hope, on the >>> contrary, that pragmatic voices will be raised during OA week, so that we >>> can get on with reaching for the reachable instead of gratuitously raising >>> the goalposts to unrealistic heights. >>> >>> Stevan Harnad >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal