How Harnad is adulterating Open Access

Peter Suber has given a polite answer:

Entries in this weblog on the re-use of OA articles (in English):

Harnad says the untruth if he says: “OA is not about or for re-publication or re-sale, online or in print; OA is about access and use.”

The relevant OA definitions accepted by a lot of scholarly organisations and thousands of scholarls world-wide are
*Budapest 2002
*Bethesda 2003
*Berlin 2003

See Suber’s explications

However, the BBB definition doesn’t stop at free online access. It adds an extra dimension that isn’t as easy to describe, and consequently is often dropped or obscured. This extra dimension gives users permission for all legitimate scholarly uses. It removes what I’ve called permission barriers, as opposed to price barriers. The Budapest statement puts the extra dimension this way:

*By “open access” to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.
The Bethesda and Berlin statements put it this way: For a work to be OA, the copyright holder must consent in advance to let users “copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship“.

If one accepts BBB one has also accept the clear implication that free access isn’t enough.

The most influential OA journals have CC-BY licenses allowing the re-use also for commercial purposes and derivative works (e.g. translations).

The free flow of scholarly knowledge needs no copyright. It only needs a central rule: give appropriate attribution when re-using the works of other scholars.

Diesen Blogbeitrag zitieren
Klaus Graf (2007, 15. Oktober). How Harnad is adulterating Open Access. Archivalia. Abgerufen am 20. Juni 2024, von

Autor: Klaus Graf

Historiker und Archivar, Blogger

Ein Gedanke zu „How Harnad is adulterating Open Access“

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.

Suche in OpenEdition Search

Sie werden weitergeleitet zur OpenEdition Search