2008/11/19 Jean-Claude Guédon wrote in the AMSCI OA Forum:
> Larry is right, and Stevan is right. Both routes should be followed and both
> routes should be demanded by students. Let us stop this exclusive attitude
> with regard to OA. Two roads exist. They are equally valuable. Rather than
> declaring one suprior to the other, it would be far more useful to examine
> how to make these two approaches help each other.
I agree with this.
Rainer Kuhlen has posted in INETBIB a question regarding Professor Harnad’s position to the aims of the German “Urheberrechtsbündnis” (“improving copyright is slowing the OA movement”):
I have replied to this at
Here is a short summary in English:
1. It is a myth that green OA only works with a mandate.
Have a look at the NL “Cream of Science”!
2 It is a myth that mandates are legally possible in all contries.
At least in Germany it is impossible or very difficult to make mandates legally valid.
3. It is a myth that deposit with closed access is legally possible in all countries.
At least in Germany the copyright act forbidds such depositing without the consent of the holder of the exclusive rights. See
4. It is a myth that the “Request Button” works.
See my little tests
On October 11, I requested 7 titles from the U of Tasmania repository found with the following query:
On October 12 and 14 I get summa summarum 2 results, i.e. the PDFs of the requested eprints.
For me this is enough empirical evidence to say that there is until now no empirical evidence that the RCB works!
5. It is a myth to think that is all a question of embargo terms.
There are disciplines with publishers which are making case-to-case decisions and publishers which don’t accept green OA. Depositing eprints closed access which cannot be used before the last dying author is 70 years dead doesn’t make sense.
6. It is am myth that the primary aim of the OA movement is to make the journal literature free.
A lot of people don’t share this position. For a broader definition of OA see