[Open-access] An anti-RWA bill

Wed Feb 1 09:15:34 UTC 2012

Mike Taylor wrote:

> Explain again why you are on this open-access mailing
> list?

I was invited, because if libraries host our publications
and data, we have universal open access, including CC-0.

In other words, seemingly in contrast to some on this list
(pardon me if I'm mistaken), I'd like open access to benefit
both the tax-payer and science, rather than benefit only the
tax-payer and hurt science.

I joined this mailinglist after Peter's invitation, because
he expressed to me personally that he'd also be happy if we
got rid of publishers (but English is only my third
language, so maybe I misunderstood that).

I wasn't aware that asking for evidence rather than obeying
to dogma is a reason for expulsion from this list and Peter's
email yesterday seemed to indicate as much:

>> I hope I haven't alienated anybody now?
>
>
> Not me and I expect no-one else either. Our strength is that we express
> ourselves strongly in the open. If we say something that doesn't work out
> (like I did just now about scientists) we scratch it and try in a different
> direction. We clearly have differences of opinion and we have to work out
> something that is imaginative and feels right.

Maybe it was my mistake to join this list, if I'm the only
one who supports an OA model under CC-0, conforms to BOAI,
etc. and doesn't harm science in the process, then I really
don't belong here. I wouldn't want to support an initiative
that risks transforming science into a luxury past-time
for the rich, even if only as an unintended consequence.

Conversely, if want more pervasive and sustainable
open-access than the majority here is willing to support, I
should also unsubscribe.

I'm not easily offended, just let me know, it's only a click
of a button and I really wouldn't want to keep wasting your
time with my opinions.

Good luck,

Bjoern

-- 
Björn Brembs
---------------------------------------------
http://brembs.net
Neurobiology
Freie Universität Berlin
Germany