Apologiers, apparently this earlier reply went only to Bernard Lang
and not the Forum as a whole. (Bernard has since replied to this in
the Forum, but expressing some uncertainty about whether my message
had gone to the llist or just to him):
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum -- gmail.com>
Date: Oct 3, 2008 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Nihil obstat + orphan works
To: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang -- inria.fr>
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang -- inria.fr> wrote:
> I did not follow this specific case, but I have personally been
> censored rather often (compared to the number of times I tried to
> contribute).
>
> I do not have a reputation of being off topic in the other forums
> where I usually speak.
>
> for what this is worth :
>
> Of course, no one here can assess whether what I am saying is right,
> since my words did not get through.
I have several times returned the postings of Bernard Lang to him as
not relevant to the American Scientist Open Access Forum, because they
are not about Open Access but about software patents.
Bernard is a great opponent of software patents, and I agree with him,
but that is not the subject matter of the AmSci OA Forum. There are
other lists devoted to that topic. There are even other OA lists that
might find his postings on software patents pertinent, but the AmSci
OA Forum was explicitly focussed on OA Policy issue as of several
years ago, when US University Provosts were added to the list. This
specific focus was announced numerous times. (And from sad experience
I learned that when I relaxed the constraint to remain on topic, the
result was always a slew of sign-offs from the list from busy
policy-makers who did not have time for the airing of other causes):
> Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
> Software patents threaten your company
> Soutenez la Majorité Économique - Support the Economic Majority
> http://www.economic-majority.com/
> BTW, since I am talking. Is there an interest in orphan works on this
> list. I am asking because many scientific publications have a
> potential to become orphan works : since the author does not get
> royalties, he has no incentive to leave personal information to be
> tracked after he ceases to be an active professional.
There is some peripheral interest, but the focus of the list is
providing open access to the 2.5 million articles published annually
in the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals.
>I am asking because, though the proposed legislation on orphan works
> seems rather well designed in the USA, there are very different
> proposals in Europe that may reveal dangerous. In a nutshell, orphan
> works would be managed by collective management organizations mostly
> controled by publishers. Where that would lead us is anyone's guess.
If this is an OA issue, by all means discuss it (and explain how it is
an OA issue).
Stevan Harnad
Received on Mon Oct 06 2008 - 18:00:51 BST