Bernard,
I will simply quote the Bethesda statement on OA:
1. Definition of Open Access Publication
An Open Access Publication[1] is one that meets the following two conditions:
1. The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free,
irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy,
use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and
distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible
purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship[2], as well as the
right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.
2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a
copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic
format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one
online repository that is supported by an academic institution, scholarly
society, government agency, or other well-established organization that
seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability,
and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central is such
a repository).
I hope this helps you sort out these ideas.
OA is more than simple and cost-less access; it implies the same kinds of
freedoms that a GPL ensures for software.
Much of OA thinking was inspired by the free software movement.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 13:21 +0100, Bernard Lang a écrit :
Is there a distinction between papers that are just openly accessible,
and papers that can be freely reproduced on other sites, or other
media in your classifications.
I am trying o identifi the concept of an open work. If it is simply
something that I can access, that qualifies the whole of the Internet.
But can I make copies, preserve it or present it in some other form.
Who has enough rights so that the conditions of work availability can
evolve with the state of the art in documents access, presentation,
organization.
What we do now in not the end of progress in publication. My concern
is the future.
Why do I worry : because I spend much time working on orphan works
issues. I am trying to determine when the rightsholder is needed to
ensure adequate life and survival of a work. Being accessible for
reading is just not enough.
Bernard
* Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon_at_UMONTREAL.CA>, le 14-11-10, a écrit:
> Indeed, Larry!
>
> And Stevan Harnad is quite right is refusing to equate Open Access with
> the Gold Road.
>
> In fact, Open Access is made up of two approaches: OA publishing or
> "Gold Road" and self-archiving or "Green Road". And both roads are
> valuable, arguably equally (although differently) valuable.
>
> As for Wallace-Evans, one only has to see how he characterized Robert K.
> Merton ("most pusillanimous"... ???) to realize that the barbarians are
> at the gates. It is a pity to see a priodical like Nation fall this low.
> I used to like reading Nation when I was a student.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
>
> Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 10:21 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> > One can sympathize with Larry Lessig's frustration in "An Obvious
> > Distinction":
> >
> > LL:
> > "In 2010, [for David Wallace-Evans] to suggest [in a
> > 6000-word review in The Nation] that [the Creative
> > Commons movement] 'exhort[s]… piracy and the
> > plundering of culture'... betrays not just sloppy
> > thinking [but] extraordinary ignorance… [and lack of]
> > respect for what has been written… This terrain has
> > been plowed a hundred times in the past decade…
> > Reading is the first step to… respect for what has
> > been written... Reading is what Wallace-Wells has not
> > done well."
> >
> > Larry tries to correct Wallace-Evans's 6000 sloppy words with 878
> > carefully chosen ones of his own.
> >
> >
> > Let me try to atone for my own frequent long-windedness by trying to
> > put it even more succinctly (20 words):
> >
> > Creative Commons' goal
> > is to protect
> > creators' give-away rights --
> > not consumers'
> > (or 2nd-party copyright-holders')
> > rip-off rights.
> >
> > (Reader's of the American Scientist Open Access Forum may have a sense
> > of déjà lu about this since at least as far back as December
> > 2000: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1048.html )
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Harnad, Stevan (2000/2001/2003/2004) For Whom the Gate
> > Tolls? Published as: (2003) Open Access to Peer-Reviewed
> > Research Through Author/Institution Self-Archiving: Maximizing
> > Research Impact by Maximizing Online Access. In: Law, Derek &
> > Judith Andrews, Eds. Digital Libraries: Policy Planning and
> > Practice. Ashgate Publishing 2003. [Shorter version: Harnad S.
> > (2003) Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 49: 337-342.] and in:
> > (2004) Historical Social Research (HSR) 29:1. [French version:
> > Harnad, S. (2003) Cielographie et cielolexie: Anomalie
> > post-gutenbergienne et comment la resoudre. In: Origgi, G. &
> > Arikha, N. (eds) Le texte a l'heure de l'Internet.
> > Bibliotheque Centre Pompidou: 77-103.
> > ______________________________________________________________
> >
> > The persistent "piracy" canard calls to mind others like it, foremost
> > among them being:
> > "OA ≡ Gold OA (publishing)"...
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S.,
> > Gingras, Y, Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E.
> > (2004) The green and the gold roads to Open Access. Nature Web
> > Focus
> > ______________________________________________________________
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal
--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
Received on Tue Nov 16 2010 - 15:31:00 GMT