I don't want to overmake my point but I need to clarify one thing:
As Jean-Claude said quite cogently: LET'S STOP OPPOSING GOLD AND
GREEN, even indirectly in the way we formulate our comments (it's
detrimental to both) and LET'S STOP CONFLATING GOLD WITH AUHTOR-PAY
(it's false).
Now beyond that I am surprised to see that Stevan is surprised :
At 8:13 -0500 16/11/09, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> It's interesting how tried, tested and proven practical solutions that
> are within reach but not being grasped can be (in one's mind)
> overtaken by fast-forwarding hypothetical "concepts and machineries"
> that are not even within sight.
That is because mankind does not make decisions only on reasonable
arguments and history is full of such instances. (It's the difference
between philosophy or the sciences and politics: politics is what
makes things happen, philosphy and the sciences just tell us what
things should be). It's not because depositing articles is "a proven
practical solution", and "within reach" that it will catch. In fact
it doesn't catch that well as
At 8:13 -0500 16/11/09, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> for 'lo these (at least) 20 years in which we could already have had
> it
and we still don't. How come when many freely accessible scientific
publication develop every year?
The process by which a solution become widespread or even by which
practices get disseminated is complex and the end result is rarely
predictable. So it may eventually be that Green OA we all wish might
spawn Gold OA. In fact it already is. So back to my first point :
let's not oppose them, but let's not downgrade Gold OA either which
needs all the imagination we can if we want it to serve research
communities.
Jean Kempf (Lyon)
http://www.oapen.org
Received on Tue Nov 17 2009 - 19:58:58 GMT