[Open-access] Green Gold Gratis Libre

[Tom Olijhoek]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> I had not seen Peter Suber's gratis/libre post before.  It is very
> good, and I highly recommend it to everyone.  It makes much of what
> we've discussed here unnecessary:
>
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre


It is in the link list of the @ccess website from the beginning and also in
the definition page2
I also think it is very clear on green ,gratis, libre and free

>
>
> But I wish he'd have the basic common sense to put each of his posts
> on a separate page!  There is a better page to cite (with the same
> content) at:
>        http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/articles/gratisandlibre.shtml
>
> Having seen this, I think we should not attempt our own definitions.
> They would be superfluous and would only create more confusion.
>
> -- Mike.
>
> P.S. Can anyone briefly bring me up to speed on the history?  Why do
> we even HAVE a Berlin definition when we already had the Budapest
> definition?  What was that not sufficient?
>

I think the Budapest Definition is still very valid and the most libre kind
of open access (see peter's mail). The list can still be signed!!!  fgs
 The other conferences are more detailed descriptions for other kinds of
media as far as I can tell.
I think that we can safely stick with BOAI Open Access defined by us as
@ccess  and only refer to the other detailed descriptions like Berlin for
those cases where this is necessary.because of inclusion of other media.
If we don't stick with it we only create confusion IMO.

TOM

>
>
>
>
>
> On 24 February 2012 15:06, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > For me this discussion is a little bit strange.
> >
> > I am an advocate of the BBB definition of OA and do not appreciate any
> > try to ignore the progess between BOAI and Berlin. Berlin is the most
> > accepted OA declaration.
> >
> > Suber has shown several times that the BBB definitions have a core
> > meaning. Therefore it is allowed to speak of "the" BBB definition.
> >
> > CC-BY is the CC license which fits best the BBB definition but at the
> > time of the BOAI CC (which was foundet also in 2001) was only in statu
> > nascendi.
> >
> > The Berlin definition has towo points which are not up to date:
> >
> > (1) "as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for
> > their personal use." This is overruled by all CC licenses.
> >
> > (2) "A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,
> > including a copy of the permission as stated above". This is overruled
> > by tagging with CC-licenses.
> >
> > What gratis and libre means has been fixed in a Suber/Harnad agreement:
> >
> > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre
> >
> > We should not confuse the things by claiming that CC-NC or ND isn't
> > libre ("removal of price and at least some permission barriers").
> >
> > Klaus Graf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-access mailing list
> > open-access at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120224/e7cc6e81/attachment.html>