[Open-access] Green Gold Gratis Libre

Fri Feb 24 14:38:50 UTC 2012

On 24 February 2012 14:15, cameronneylon.net <cn at cameronneylon.net> wrote:
>
>> (We probably don't want to get into discussing CC-BY-SA, since there
>> are validly differing opinions on where that is more or less free than
>> CC-BY, just as people disagree over whether the GNU GPL or Modified
>> BSD licence is more free for software.)
>
> Strictly speaking if we're focussed on BOAI this point is moot as the BOAI specifies CC-BY

Wait -- do you mean that literally?  I have been using
        http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess
as the BOAI definition -- it describes something very like CC-BY, but
doesn't name (which is unsurprising as IIRC it predates CC).  Is there
a newer BOAI definition that actually SAYS CC-BY?

> (as does the Open Source Definition).

No.  The OSD
        http://opensource.org/docs/osd
definitely does not mention CC, and does includes the GNU GPL, which
has an SA condition.
        http://opensource.org/licenses/category

> One of the things that's worrying me is the conflation of BOAI and OKD which are actually different on this point.

Absolutely:
        http://opendefinition.org/
is explicitly SA-friendly.

> As Mike says, we probably don't want to start that argument up again (I'm right, you're all wrong, clearly) but we should probably be clear about this. For me BOAI-compliant is pretty clear.

Agreed.  It says what we want it to say, AND it's the oldest
definition (at least among those in common knowledge -- right?) of the
term "open access".  That it the one we want to be using.

-- Mike.