[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Many thanks to Klaus Graf for supporting my position, but I should
nonetheless like to add a little coda to his message. While all the
myths listed by Klaus are real, it would be equally a myth to lean on
this conclusion to refuse pushing for all the suggestions mentioned
in Klaus' message. For example, getting a mandate may be difficult in
Germany for legal reason, but that does not weaken the position
arguing in favour of mandating wherever possible. It just makes us
more aware of the real difficulties in obtaining the desired results.
Getting a mandate can be very hard work indeed, as hard as getting OA
journals going, or perhaps even harder in some circumstances (but not
all). What is needed here is some sense of nuances.
This leads me to a last remark: looking squarely at realities such as
"obtaining mandates can be hard" is not - I repeat "not" - a way to
object to getting mandates; it is just that: looking at reality
squarely. Not all leaders agree with the method that claims that all
tasks are easy is the best way to motivate followers, and that saying
otherwise is defeatist or counter-productive.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le mercredi 19 novembre 2008 à 17:40 +0100, Klaus Graf a écrit :
2008/11/19 Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca>:
> Larry is right, and Stevan is right. Both routes should be followed and both
> routes should be demanded by students. Let us stop this exclusive attitude
> with regard to OA. Two roads exist. They are equally valuable. Rather than
> declaring one suprior to the other, it would be far more useful to examine
> how to make these two approaches help each other.
I agree with this.
Rainer Kuhlen has posted in INETBIB a question regarding Professor
Harnad's position to the aims of the German "Urheberrechtsbündnis"
("improving copyright is slowing the OA movement"):
http://www.ub.uni-dortmund.de/listen/inetbib/msg37662.html
I have replied to this at
http://www.ub.uni-dortmund.de/listen/inetbib/msg37671.html
Here is a short summary in English:
1. It is a myth that green OA only works with a mandate.
Have a look at the NL "Cream of Science"!
2 It is a myth that mandates are legally possible in all contries.
At least in Germany it is impossible or very difficult to make
mandates legally valid.
3. It is a myth that deposit with closed access is legally possible in
all countries.
At least in Germany the copyright act forbidds such depositing without
the consent of the holder of the exclusive rights. See
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/
4. It is a myth that the "Request Button" works.
See my little tests
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5247312/
On October 11, I requested 7 titles from the U of Tasmania repository
found with the following query:
http://tinyurl.com/5dbssm
On October 12 and 14 I get summa summarum 2 results, i.e. the PDFs of
the requested eprints.
For me this is enough empirical evidence to say that there is until
now no empirical evidence that the RCB works!
5. It is a myth to think that is all a question of embargo terms.
There are disciplines with publishers which are making case-to-case
decisions and publishers which don't accept green OA. Depositing
eprints closed access which cannot be used before the last dying
author is 70 years dead doesn't make sense.
6. It is am myth that the primary aim of the OA movement is to make
the journal literature free.
A lot of people don't share this position. For a broader definition of OA see
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5251764/
Klaus Graf
.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Université de Montréal
Received on Wed Nov 19 2008 - 17:19:11 GMT