[Open-access] german docs on open access

Fri May 4 13:31:35 UTC 2012

On 4 May 2012 14:26, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com> wrote:
> My objection to Green is exactly what Peter says, it is unclear about
> restrictions.

Well, let's be clear ourselves.  There is nothing about Green that
means it has to be unclear about restricts; and conversely there is
nothing about Gold that means it does not.  For example, one of my
favourite palaeontology journals, Acta Palaeontologica Polonica is
free to read (and free to authors, but that's beside the point).  But
it doesn't specify what licence the content is made available under.

So implicit vs. explicit, like gratis vs. libre, is orthogonal to
green vs. gold.  And while we would all agree that explicit is better
than implicit and libre is better than gratis, I am still not seeing
an *intrinsic* reason for strongly preferring green over gold.

Of course it may well be the case that green is more often implicit
about terms than gold is; and that would certainly be something to fix
about those specific green repositories.  But it's not the fault of
green itself.  Correlation does not imply causality.

-- Mike.

> And often repository papers are CC-BY-NC or no license
> Also Gold is not per definition good, because there the only sure thing is
> the source (publisher) and not open accessness.Gold can be free and
> unrestricted but also free and somewhat restricted.  In fact all the
> colours, green, gold, yellow,blue and flavours gratis and libre are not
> sufficient for the kind of BOAI Open Access that is needed for open science.
> Therefore still the case for @ccess.
>
> TOM
>
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2012 13:06, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Mike,
>>> >
>>> > OK, I will do that as soon as I can find the time.
>>>
>>> Appreciated.
>>>
>>> > BTW I read the nature blog comment series Harnad <---> you yourself
>>> >  liked
>>> > your comments!
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> > It is really apparent that open access according to Harnad is something
>>> > quite different from @ccess.
>>>
>>> Sadly, yes.
>>>
>>> > We have to make absolutely clear in our @ccess article that gratis,
>>> > green,
>>> > even libre aren't enough for open science to happen, and that we want
>>> > @ccess
>>>
>>> Well, I agree on Gratis and even on Libre (since the usually reliable
>>> Peter Suber collaborated with Harnad on giving it that
>>> doesn't-mean-anything-specific-at-all definition).  But I'm not sure I
>>> understand your objection to Green.  While Gratis-vs.- at ccess is about
>>> WHAT you get, surely Green-vs.-Gold is only about HOW you get it?
>>>
>>
>> This is technically correct Mike. The problem is that very few Green
>> deposition are technically CC-BY. So almost always "Green" means - a
>> self-archived manuscript (of some sort) without explicit licence or with a
>> licence that forbids re-use. So the language slips to equate Green with
>> non-reusable.
>>
>> As an example of re-usable green BMC is archiving my papers in our repo.
>> They are CC-BY in BMC - Gold. When they get into the Cambridge repo they
>> will be Green. They may not have a licence and Cambridge - like other univs
>> - stamps everything as non-reusable. But they could be Green CC-BY if people
>> put the effort in.
>>
>>
>> P.
>>
>>>
>>> -- Mike.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-access mailing list
>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>
>