[Open-access] Well, this is unexpected!

Tue Feb 28 11:41:24 UTC 2012

Mike Taylor wrote:

> On 28 February 2012 08:09, cameronneylon.net
> <cn at cameronneylon.net> wrote:
>> I think IRs and DRs are just publishers, simply different types of publishers for instance - but in the short term keep your ear to the ground for whispers.

> I like the idea of describing IRs as publishers.

I think I don't need to emphasize that pushing the notion
that libraries which host IRs are publishers.

:-)

> That isn't necessarily a point we need to make -- we can just start talking that
> way as though it's always been assumed.  "Like other publishers, IRs
> make works available under some specific licence; unlike many other
> publishers, that licence is often permissive."  That kind of thing.

In fact, that's one of the things which beg the question:
what do we need 'real' publishers for?

Shouldn't this question be solved first? I still have never
gotten a satisfying answer.

Cheers,

Bjoern

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