[Oa-italia] Strong and weak OA
Susanna Mornati
mornati a cilea.it
Mer 30 Apr 2008 10:09:04 CEST
Ecco una stretta di mano fra i maggiori guru dell'OA, e un'estensione
al suo glossario:
- Open Access "debole": letteratura digitale online accessibile senza
pagamento;
- Open Access "forte": letteratura digitale online accessibile senza
pagamento e senza restrizioni d'uso.
Riporto sotto integralmente il testo di Suber adottato anche da Harnad.
Saluti, Susanna
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Suber su Open Access News, 29 aprile 2008
Strong and weak OA
The term "open access" is now widely used in at least two
senses. For some, "OA" literature is digital, online, and free of
charge. It removes price barriers but not permission barriers. For
others, "OA" literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free
of unnecessary copyright and licensing restrictions. It removes both
price barriers and permission barriers. It allows reuse rights which
exceed fair use.
There are two good reasons why our central term became
ambiguous. Most of our success stories deliver OA in the first
sense, while the major public statements from Budapest, Bethesda, and
Berlin (together, the BBB definition of OA) describe OA in the second sense.
As you know, Stevan Harnad and I have differed about which sense of
the term to prefer --he favoring the first and I the second. What
you may not know is that he and I agree on nearly all questions of
substance and strategy, and that these differences were mostly about
the label. While it may seem that we were at an impasse about the
label, we have in fact agreed on a solution which may please
everyone. At least it pleases us.
We have agreed to use the term "weak OA" for the removal of price
barriers alone and "strong OA" for the removal of both price and
permission barriers. To me, the new terms are a distinct improvement
upon the previous state of ambiguity because they label one of those
species weak and the other strong. To Stevan, the new terms are an
improvement because they make clear that weak OA is still a kind of OA.
On this new terminology, the BBB definition describes one kind of
strong OA. A typical funder or university mandate provides weak
OA. Many OA journals provide strong OA, but many others provide weak OA.
Stevan and I agree that weak OA is a necessary but not sufficient
condition of strong OA. We agree that weak OA is often attainable in
circumstances when strong OA is not attainable. We agree that weak
OA should not be delayed until we can achieve strong OA. We agree
that strong OA is a desirable goal above and beyond weak OA. We
agree that the desirability of strong OA is a reason to keep working
after attaining weak OA, but not a reason to disparage the
difficulties or the significance of weak OA. We agree that the BBB
definition of OA does not need to be revised.
We agree that there is more than one kind of permission barrier to
remove, and therefore that there is more than one kind or degree of
strong OA.
We agree that the green/gold distinction refers to venues
(repositories and journals), not rights. Green OA can be strong or
weak, but is usually weak. Gold OA can be strong or weak, but is
also usually weak.
I've often wanted short, clear terms for what I'm now going to call
weak and strong OA. But I also wanted a third term. In my blog and
newsletter I often need a term which means "weak or strong OA, we
don't know which yet". For example, a press release may announce a
new free online journal, digital library, or database, without making
clear what kind of reuse rights it allows. Or a new journal will
launch which makes its articles freely available but says nothing at
all about its access policy. I will simply call them "OA". I'll
specify that they are strong or weak OA only after I learn enough to do so.
Stevan and I agree in regretting the current, confusing ambiguity of
the term, and we agree that the weak/strong terminology turns this
ambiguity to advantage by attaching labels to the two most common
uses in circulation. I find the new terms an especially promising
solution because they dispel confusion without requiring us to buck
the tide of usage, which would be futile, or revise the BBB
definition, which would be undesirable.
Postscript. Stevan and I were going to write up separate accounts of
this agreement and blog them simultaneously. But when he saw my
draft, he decided to blog it verbatim without writing his
own. That's agreement!
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/strong-and-weak-oa.html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/399-Open-Access-Strong-and-Weak.html
Susanna Mornati, CILEA
Project Leader AEPIC, www.aepic.it
+39 02 2699 5322, +39 348 7090 226,
mailto:mornati a cilea.it, skype: susanna.mornati
Maggiori informazioni sulla lista
OA-Italia