[Open-access] german docs on open access

[Mike Taylor]

Yes.  As I said in a comment on the Nature News article, the only
concrete thing you lose by using a Green OA publication is the
publisher's official page-numbers.  Which is not such a big price to
pay, and one that will become even less of an issue when we all start
using section and subsection numbers, like computer scientists do.

-- Mike.


On 4 May 2012 14:38, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access