[Open-access] german docs on open access

[Klaus Graf]

I agree. You can have CC-BY with green OA and "All rights reserved"
with gold. Green has a format problem because most scholars doens'nt
want cite final drafts instead of publisher's pdf.

Klaus Graf

2012/5/4 Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com>:
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access