[Open-access] Green Gold Gratis Libre

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Minor comments

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> This almost all looks right to me.
>
>
> Yes.  It might be worth making the point that CC-BY is a libre licence
> (the canonical one, really) whereas CC-BY-NC is merely a gratis
> licence.
>

Agreed. This is an excellent division

>
> (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.)
>
> Agreed. I will hinder rather than harm. AFAIUI OKD allows SA and BOAI does
not.


> > GREEN: The means that one of the following has put "a scholarly
> publication"
> > on the web:
> >   * a human author or their representative
> >   * the human's employer/institution/department
> >   * a publisher acting on the behalf of the author. An example is that a
> > publisher may deposit the manuscript in an institutional repo
>
> Yes.  This doesn't exhaust the possibilities, either.  For example,
> the maintainer of a green subject-specific repositiory might reposit.
> Basically, I think it's anyone but the publisher.
>

Agreed. I think the last line is all we need

>
> In the end, the ONLY difference between green and gold is who makes
> the article physically available.  In gold, it's the publisher, in
> green it's someone else.  You could characterise the difference as:
> does the publisher actually HELP, or merely not hinder?
>

Perhaps! The problem with Green is that there is no legal provision and
every possibility that a publisher might retract the "priviliege" if green
became too popular

>
> On permanence: there is a difference between how permanently something
> has access rights (e.g. releasing under any CC licence is irrevocable)
> and how permanently something is hosted.  In practice, anything CC'd
> is free forever because it gets mirrored across the world.
>

Yes. CC is a right to copy for protection of permanence (right?)

>
> > It is unclear whether a publisher who makes material GRATIS after a
> period
> > makes that material "Green". Some Green publishing requires that
> > publications are only available on certain sites and not on others
>
> Again this is nothing to do with green vs. gold.  It's about the licence.
>

No - there is no licence involved most of the time. The publisher makes up
rules

>
> > We agree that Green-CC-BY is possible (e.g. nature Precedings). Green
> does
> > not imply any requirement to announce or register the site(s)..
>
>
>
-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120224/ee8111ed/attachment.html>