[open-science] Principles of "Open Access" (

Sat Jul 6 12:34:54 UTC 2013

I do my best not to use "free" - it has tons of implications in software.

"Public" access is the term that is already well used in government 
policy. It's a good word that isn't otherwise in use in "free" or "open" 
systems, and it gets at the spirit of things.

jtw

On 7/6/13 7:00 AM, open-science-request at lists.okfn.org wrote:
> Send open-science mailing list submissions to
> 	open-science at lists.okfn.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	open-science-owner at lists.okfn.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of open-science digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: Principles of "Open Access" (Graham Triggs)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 21:37:21 +0100
> From: Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [open-science] Principles of "Open Access"
> To: Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> Cc: Mike Taylor <sauropoda at gmail.com>,	open-science
> 	<open-science at lists.okfn.org>,	"open-access at lists.okfn.org"
> 	<open-access at lists.okfn.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAOoxy7Kw8Eoyh9JcShoKUdCoYPGmW8weT6T-TrZ2f07ZTr-8Gw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 4 July 2013 16:43, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be useful for this list to create a clear simple guide to
>> (Fully) open OA. The BOAI is clear but has been downgraded.
>>
>
> I do agree with this. Imho, subdividing OA into Gold, Green, Libre, Gratis,
> etc. is not helpful. Especially when half (or more) of the definitions
> remove "open" from "open access".
>
> There is nothing wrong with "free access" - both as a concept and a term.
> Free access is nearly as important as open access, and shares the same
> values, if not all of the benefits - that we need to ensure that
> researchers are not prevented from getting access to published research.
> But it should be clear that free is not open.
>
> I believe more is needed, especially on rights and also on WHY we need Open
>> Access (I wish there was a new term and maybe we should strive for that).
>>
>
> Or, seeing as "open" is well understood pretty much everywhere else it is
> invoked, why not just defend the meaning and chase out the terms that
> dilute it? There is no need for it - the alternatives are simply clearer.
>
> G
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130705/3c48b785/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/optionss/open-science
>
>
> End of open-science Digest, Vol 299, Issue 1
> ********************************************
>

-- 
follow me on twitter @wilbanks
read more at http://del-fi.org