Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

In spite of my saying that I would give Stevan the last word, I'll add one clarification: It was not my intent to imply that Stevan had not made major tangible contributions to OA in the form of his many invaluable software and other projects. Nor was I trying to imply that Stevan had not made ma

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Prior AmSci Topic Thread: "Free Access vs. Open Access" (began August, 2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2956.html OA: NO CUES FROM THE P'S Stevan Harnad For those without the time to work through the details, the pun

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Prior AmSci Topic Thread begins: "Free Access vs. Open Access" (August, 2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2956.html In "The Spectrum of E-Journal Access Policies: Open to Restricted Access" http://www.escholarlypub.com/digitalkoans/2005/05/

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

This scriptural exegesis about "free" vs. "open" calls to mind the (alleged) words of a certain franco-austrian monarchess on the subject of brioche: "Let Them Eat Cake..." (M. Antoinette) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1525.html What research needs is toll-free access

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > There is nothing in the BOAI definition to support the "free/open" > distinction that some have since attempted to make. In particular, the > BOAI definition states that author/institution self-archiving of the > full-text of an article is one of the

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Stevan Harnad wrote [in part]: >[sh]> If you have the money to publish *one* article in >[sh]> PLoS ($1500) you have more than enough money to set >[sh]> up at least one eprint archive. (Kepler OAI >[sh]> "archivelets" might be an even cheaper solution: >[sh]> http://www.dlib.o

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Jim Till wrote: > The debate seems to me to be mainly about the 2nd component of the > definitions of open access that are included in the Berlin Declaration, > and in the Bethesda Statement No, the discussion is about the BOAI definition, the one that coined the term "open ac

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

In a message sent to this Forum on 3 Jan 2004, I asked: > Has anyone who has contributed to this thread proposed a > revised definition of open access? Or, is the debate > mainly about how best to implement the BOAI definition? See: > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess I'll

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

At 02:13 PM 1/3/2004 +, Jan Velterop wrote: >Peter, > >You're absolutely correct in your observation that our differences are >minute, in the scheme of things. Nonetheless, I think I disagree with you >that we have Open Access if just the price barrier is lifted. Jan, You have this part

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

The quintessence of the disagreement between (on one side) Mike Eisen (PLoS) and Jan Velterop (BMC) and (on the other side) myself (and Peter Suber, Barbara Kirsop, and Sally Morris) is contained at the end of the very last sentence of Mike's latest posting: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Michael Eisen wrote

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

I think an important point has been lost in the various threads on this topic. While there is clearly disagreement about what does and should constitute open access, I think we all agree on two things: 1) universal free access to the peer-reviewed literature, in any form, would be a wonderful thi

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

will lead to 'open' access in the end. Best wishes for 2004, Jan Velterop -Original Message- From: Barbara Kirsop To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: 1/2/04 5:37 PM Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access Dear All, I have sympathised with Stevan

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Barbara Kirsop wrote [in part, on the Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access]: >[bk]> The present discussions on the AmSci forum on whether >[bk]> 'open' is the same as/different from 'free' access and >[bk]> comparing this with the n

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Peter, You're absolutely correct in your observation that our differences are minute, in the scheme of things. Nonetheless, I think I disagree with you that we have Open Access if just the price barrier is lifted. I don't think it's a question of archiving and OAI-compliance (or other sure-fire fi

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Lars Aronsson wrote: > [H]ow do we determine if an article is "permanently" accessible?... > I know but one way to guarantee permanent access, and that is to allow > free copying and republishing. Webwide toll-free copying, downloading, and storing of self-archived articles is

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Stevan Harnad wrote: > So here is my list, again: > > (1) UBIQUITOUS DIRECT ONLINE ACCESS MAKES DERIVATIVE ACCESS SUPERFLUOUS: > Once the full-text is immediately, permanently, and ubiquitously > (i.e., webwide) accessible toll-free, so any user anywhere, any time, > can read the full-text on-scree

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Jan, Thanks for your comment. I've already argued in public that deposit should not be part of the definition of OA, , and there's no need to repeat the arguments here. The same arguments apply to OAI-compliance. The point is a delica

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Jan Velterop wrote: > What is Open Access worth if an article is 'open' but not easily > universally accessible? For that we need OAI-compliance. What is it worth without OAI? Infinitely more than if access is blocked by tolls (as most of it still is today). (But of course OA

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Jan -----Original Message- From: Peter Suber To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: 1/2/04 5:28 PM Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access Sally, I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your helpful post. More below. At 09:02 AM 12/31/2003 +0100,

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Dear All, I have sympathised with Stevan's New Year message on the misunderstandings and digressions regarding acceptance of OA (see american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org). We faced all these uncertainties at the Bangalore workshop last year and developed a FAQ similar to Stevan's for th

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Sally, I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your helpful post. More below. At 09:02 AM 12/31/2003 +0100, Sally Morris wrote: [Omitting short descriptions of OA journals and OA archives.] > In neither case is any of the following a sine qua non, though they > appear to be 'articles of f

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

In the following, I respond to multiple postings: (a) one by Peter Suber, (b) three by Mike Eisen, and (c) one by Seth Johnson. Happy New Year to All! S.H. -- (a) Peter Suber wrote: > Self-archiving is a true open-access strategy, not merely a free-access > strategy. Authors

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

-Original Message- From: Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:44:29 + Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access > All would-be users need to be able to read, download, store, > print-off and perhap

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Stevan- You say: > Am I missing something? It seems to me that we have all the access and > use we could possibly want here, without going so far as to stipulate what > sort of velum it should appear on before declaring the access truly open! Yes, you are missing something. You seem intent on na

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

At 03:16 PM 12/31/2003 +, Stevan Harnad wrote: >The discussion of the Free/Open Access distinction appears to >be growing. I see that Peter Suber has posted a reply to the >SOAF list, which I will re-post to the Amsci Forum in a moment >so I can reply to it on both lists after I have replied t

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Michael Eisen wrote: > First, for the sake of clarity, can we just agree that, whatever relative > value you place on the two, free access and open access are not equivalent > and that it does no one any good to confuse the two. We can agree for the sake of clarity that an at

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

As Peter Suber's comment is shorter, I will reply to it first, even though it came after Mike Eisen's. The reply will give a foretaste of what the reply to Mike will be: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Peter Suber wrote: > Here's how I've put it e.g. in > .

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

I agree with Mike. Here's how I've put it e.g. in . There are two important kinds of access barriers: price barriers and permission barriers. Free online access removes price barriers. Open access removes both price and permission barriers. Do

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

The discussion of the Free/Open Access distinction appears to be growing. I see that Peter Suber has posted a reply to the SOAF list, which I will re-post to the Amsci Forum in a moment so I can reply to it on both lists after I have replied to Mike Eisen (in prep.!). But before I reply I would li

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Sally Morris wrote: > The core, essential feature is free, unrestricted access (to primary > research articles) for everyone. This can take 2 forms: > > 1)In Stevan's term, 'self-archiving' - posting, generally > by authors or institutions, of preprints, postprints or both, on > personal/dep

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

ng that anyone, anywhere, any time, can download it, read it, store it, print it out, and computer-process it). *That* much the archive must make possible. For the advantages of institutional over central archives, and OAI-compliant over arbitrary archives, see above. > Am I alone in seeing it thi

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Original Message - From: "Michael Eisen" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 11:07 PM Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access > Stevan, > > First, for the sake of clarity, can we just agree that, whatever relative > value you place on the two, free access and open a

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

y limits the types of computational analysis and data-mining that can be done on the literature. If all you want to do is search, then self-archiving is ok (although still subotimal), but for any more sophisticated analyses it is not. - Original Message - From: "Stevan Harnad"

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

sagree 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 to enco

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

aging this kind of confusion of open access and free access. If all you care about is free access, then lobby for that, but don't dilute the meaning of open access. -Mike - Original Message - From: "Stevan Harnad" To: Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Fr

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

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* c

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

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

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

From: "Lars Aronsson" To: Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:35 AM Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access > Stevan Harnad wrote: > > And what is meant by "redistribute" when the text is already distributed > > all over the planet on the web, and freely avai

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

I think Jan Velterop might have misinterpreted the content of the "Free Access vs. Open Access" thread. This thread is not in fact opposing two rival forms of access. It is questioning the coherence and content of the open vs. free access distinction itself. On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Ja

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

open", but "free AND open" or at the very least "free AS A MOVE TOWARDS open". Jan > -Original Message- > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] > Sent: 15 December 2003 03:23 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Lars Aronsson wrote: > Stevan Harnad wrote: >sh> And what is meant by "redistribute" when the text is already distributed >sh> all over the planet on the web, and freely available to anyone who may >sh> wish to find, search, read, download, process computationally online or >s

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Stevan Harnad wrote: > And what is meant by "redistribute" when the text is already distributed > all over the planet on the web, and freely available to anyone who may > wish to find, search, read, download, process computationally online or > offline, and print off anywhere in the world, any time

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

I've changed the subject thread because the focus seems to have returned to the free vs open access distinction, which I will argue is both spurious and a retardant on progress toward free/open access. The point is extremely simple. According to Mike Eisen, my definition of open access as FREE, IM

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

E FULL-TEXTS ONLINE > > "Is there any need for a universal Open Access label?" > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3223.html > > They could fail to meet that definition not only by failing to be free, or > failing to be refereed journal articl

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jan Velterop wrote: > Our advice to authors should be: > > 1. Publish in open access journals when possible; > > 2. If not possible, self-archive in OAI-compliant repositories in a > machine-readable format (such as XML); > > 3. Should that not be possible either, self-archive

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Sorry, Stevan, your response is too long to read fully. This is the 'offending' sentence: "...being able to do *everything* one could do with paper..." That's simply not enough. 'Opening the curtains' is fine if you want to shed light, but half the time it's night. Our advice to authors should be

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jan Velterop wrote: > If online material is 'open' in the sense of 'free' that is of course a > great step forward, but if it's only available in pdf... > that is decidedly sub-optimal... > Not being opti

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

[Forwarded from a separate discussion thread on the Humanist list concerning open access to monographs. Redirected here because it now focusses on the "free vs. open" distinction. -- SH] If online material is 'open' in the sense of 'free' that is of course a great step forward, but if

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Christopher Warnock wrote: > The ebrary [http://www.ebrary.com/] controls over the documents > range from very restrictive access models to completely open access > models incorporating any variation of viewing, copying, printing or > downloading. That seems fine, and a

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Christopher Warnock wrote: > Stevan, > > I have read your comments with regard to free access vs. open access > and I am curious as to your thoughts regarding copyrights and open > access and how it relates to ebrary, if at all. > > As a matter o

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Stevan, Thank you for your reply. You have provided me a valuable insight as to how we may be perceived within the academic and library communities. I would like to possibly clarify some things about ebrary because it seems, that in this instance, we are being equated with a capability of

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Stevan, I have read your comments with regard to free access vs. open access and I am curious as to your thoughts regarding copyrights and open access and how it relates to ebrary, if at all. As a matter of interest/ potential discussion, ebrary has created http://librarycenter.ebrary.com

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On the Deep Disanalogy Between Text and Software and Between Text and Data Insofar as Free/Open Access is Concerned Stevan Harnad It would be a *great* conceptual and strategic mistake for the movement dedicated to open access

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Matthew Cockerill writes > * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The > * freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs > * > (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for > * this. > > * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can h

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Barry Mahon writes > The actual technical aspects of the database loading may be > irrelevant but there is an important corollorary - secondary > information services (abstracting and indexing) play an increasingly > important role as the primary literature becomes more and more > diffused in t

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

> >Date:Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:41:01 +0100 >From:Sally Morris >Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access > >5)Whether the item and/or its metadata are deposited in certain >types of databases (this last seems to me supremely irrelevant) The actual technical as

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

m...@biomedcentral.com > -Original Message- > From: Sally Morris [mailto:sec-...@alpsp.org] > Sent: 14 August 2003 12:41 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access > > > I think part of the problem m

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Sally Morris wrote: > I think part of the problem may be that we are considering various different > 'axes' in trying to define 'Open Access': > > 1)Whether or not it's free to access (not, we should remember, a > requirement of OAI!). OAI is not the relevant "OA" in

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

alpsp.org - Original Message - From: "Steve Hitchcock" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:48 PM Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access > This debate between Stevan Harnad and Matthew Cockerill about what > constitutes 'open access' appears to resolve to whether

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

Steve Hitchcock (unwittingly) raises a logical point about "indexicals," whose meaning and truth depends on when and where they are uttered: If I say: "All humans are free," then for that (present-tense) proposition -- i.e., not "some" but "all," and not "were free," not "will be free", not "might

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

This debate between Stevan Harnad and Matthew Cockerill about what constitutes 'open access' appears to resolve to whether or not a full-text document has a machine interface to the full text, for datamining purposes, as well as a user interface. In the absence of evidence of gerrymandered free ac

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Matthew Cockerill wrote: >sh> "The use one makes of those full texts is to read them, >sh>print them off, quote/comment them, cite them, and use >sh>their *contents* in further research, building on them. >sh>What is "re-use"? And what is "redistr

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

l: m...@biomedcentral.com > -Original Message- > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] > Sent: 11 August 2003 03:40 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Free Access vs. Open Access > > > BioMedCentral's &

Free Access vs. Open Access

BioMedCentral's "Open Access Now" is a useful newsletter, but its first editorial contains some inadvertently misleading information that needs to be corrected. What http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/#article1 actually said was this: > "Free Access is not Open Access" > > "There seem