Stevan Harnad has confirmed his position:
One last point, made in full respect and admiration, for Peter Suber. Peter understands every word I am saying. His position, of all the people on this planet, is closest to my own. But Peter in fact has broader goals than I do. His "FOS" (Free Online Scholarship) movement predated OA, and had a much bigger goal: It targeted no less than all of scholarship, online: not just journal articles, but books, multimedia, teaching materials, everything. And the freedom was a greater freedom than freedom to access and use the scholarship.
I greatly value, and fully support Peter's wider goals. But I don't think they are just OA. They are FOS. (I shall be remembered only as an impatient, testy, parochial OA archivangelist, whereas Peter will be rightly recognised as the patient, temperate, ecumenical archangel of FOS.) But OA does have the virtue of being the easier, nearer, surer subgoal.
I think that every time a little divergence arises between Peter and me, it is always a variant of this: He still has his heart and mind set on FOS, and it is good that he does. Someone eventually has to fight that fight too. But OA is narrower than that, and it is also nearer; indeed it is within reach. Hence it is ever so important that we should not over-reach, trying to attain something that is further, and more complicated than OA, when we don't yet even have OA! For we thereby risk needlessly complicating and further delaying the already absurdly overdue attainment of OA.
I think that is what is behind our strategic difference on (1) whether OA requires the elimination of all "permission" barriers or (2) whether, after all, the elimination of all "price" barriers -- via Green OA self-archiving (which is and always has been my model, and my ever-faithful "intuition pump") -- does give us all the capabilities worth having, and worth holding out for. Re-publication rights and the right to create derivative works may be essential for FOS, and for the Creative Commons in general. But they are not essential for OA in partcular; and it would be an unnecessary, self-imposed handicap to insist that they should be.
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/311-Time-to-Update-the-BBB-Definition-of-Open-Access.html
One last point, made in full respect and admiration, for Peter Suber. Peter understands every word I am saying. His position, of all the people on this planet, is closest to my own. But Peter in fact has broader goals than I do. His "FOS" (Free Online Scholarship) movement predated OA, and had a much bigger goal: It targeted no less than all of scholarship, online: not just journal articles, but books, multimedia, teaching materials, everything. And the freedom was a greater freedom than freedom to access and use the scholarship.
I greatly value, and fully support Peter's wider goals. But I don't think they are just OA. They are FOS. (I shall be remembered only as an impatient, testy, parochial OA archivangelist, whereas Peter will be rightly recognised as the patient, temperate, ecumenical archangel of FOS.) But OA does have the virtue of being the easier, nearer, surer subgoal.
I think that every time a little divergence arises between Peter and me, it is always a variant of this: He still has his heart and mind set on FOS, and it is good that he does. Someone eventually has to fight that fight too. But OA is narrower than that, and it is also nearer; indeed it is within reach. Hence it is ever so important that we should not over-reach, trying to attain something that is further, and more complicated than OA, when we don't yet even have OA! For we thereby risk needlessly complicating and further delaying the already absurdly overdue attainment of OA.
I think that is what is behind our strategic difference on (1) whether OA requires the elimination of all "permission" barriers or (2) whether, after all, the elimination of all "price" barriers -- via Green OA self-archiving (which is and always has been my model, and my ever-faithful "intuition pump") -- does give us all the capabilities worth having, and worth holding out for. Re-publication rights and the right to create derivative works may be essential for FOS, and for the Creative Commons in general. But they are not essential for OA in partcular; and it would be an unnecessary, self-imposed handicap to insist that they should be.
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/311-Time-to-Update-the-BBB-Definition-of-Open-Access.html
KlausGraf - am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2007, 21:27 - Rubrik: English Corner
