Re: Green, Gold, Elsevier, Springer

From: Andy Powell <a.powell_at_ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 16:04:10 +0100

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, David Goodman wrote:

> Surely we all hope that as Springer and other publishers gain confidence
> with "green" OA, they will relax their requirements and specifically
> permit posting of the final pdfs.

David,

thanks for the reply. I don't strongly disagree with the sentiments you
express... I just feel that the interpretation that you and Stevan are
putting on the Springer Policy is somewhat generous and has a hint of
'rose-tinted' OA spectacles about it. But perhaps you are right...
perhaps these statements are made deliberately vague just so as to allow
you and I freedom to interpret them how we see fit - though I'm still
struggling to see what is vague about saying that we have "the right to
post the final article on a secure network (not accessible to the public)
within the employer's institute".

> There is certainly an example to follow,
> because they all once prohibited interlibrary load from electronic
> versions, and now almost all do. In the intermediate period, their
> language was often ambiguous, and intelligent librarians interpreted it
> in accordance with their patrons' best interest.
>
> We would, imho, be well advised to make vigorous use of the rights our
> campaign has won.

Sure. No-one could disagree with that. The issue in this case is whether
the rights have yet been won - I don't think that is clear from the
wording of the policy. Therefore, in this case, we may be taking rights
that have not yet been granted to us. This may be a perfectly sensible
course of action, but I think we should do so knowingly (i.e. knowing the
risks) and not under some potentially false optimistic illusion about what
Springer are saying we are allowed to do?

Andy.
Received on Sun Oct 03 2004 - 16:04:10 BST