[okfn-discuss] about open access but not open access

Sat May 4 20:35:06 UTC 2013

Hi,

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:09 PM, William Waites <ww at styx.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2013 07:20:52 -0700, "Marc Joffe" <marc at publicsectorcredit.org> said:
>
>     > What tools one uses to
>     > assemble the open data is not important (as long as the tools'
>     > licenses do not restrict distribution of the work product).
>
> Marc, I don't have a strong opinion about whether one should only
> write open access things about open access. I think the moral argument
> is a bit silly -- the justification should be that if you want your
> work to matter, to be built upon, it has to be accessible. In
> scientific and quasi-scientific disciplines where reproducability
> of results matters, the whole process must be open otherwise if
> nobody can try the same experiment and come up with the same results,
> it might all have been made up. No need for moral arguments (which
> tend to get people's backs up anyways).

I've often heard this opinion expressed, and it's perfectly true that
any moral argument can make some people remarkably unhappy.

However, I believe the moral argument is stronger than the practical
one, and I disagree that we should avoid the moral argument because it
upsets people.

I realize we're not going to resolve this on the list - I'm only
saying this because I want to be clear that the orthodoxy you express,
I do not share,

Cheers,

Matthew