[Oa-italia] Libre Open Access VS Gratis access: SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 6/2/12

Iryna Solodovnik irysolo a gmail.com
Sab 2 Giu 2012 20:59:44 CEST

*Sorry for cross-posting:*

The *rise of Libre Open Access*

In the past few months we've seen a sharp upturn in the momentum for OA on
several fronts:
1. researcher activism for OA,
2. researcher criticism of high journal prices,
3. researcher understanding of OA issues,
4. OA policy deliberations at major institutions and governments, and
mainstream media news and comment.

Here I want to focus on a relatively neglected front where progress is also
accelerating:  *libre OA*. I've been tracking gratis and libre developments
for years, and I've never seen such a sudden rise in the number of policies
and initiatives going beyond gratis to libre, and going beyond the more
restrictive end of the libre spectrum to the less restrictive end. The only
pity is that the other sudden spikes of OA progress have tended to
overshadow these developments.

(1) Defining the terms

If I'm going to spend time on this topic, I should define my terms. "Gratis"
access is free of charge. "Libre" access is free of charge and free for
some kinds of further use and reuse. Gratis access is compatible with an
all-rights-reserved copyright, which allows no uses beyond fair use (or the
local equivalent). Libre access is not compatible with an
all-rights-reserved copyright, and presupposes some kind of open license
permitting uses not permitted by default. As I've sometimes put it, gratis
removes price barriers alone and libre removes price barriers and
permission barriers.

There is only one kind of gratis access because there is only one way to
make a work free of charge. But because there are many permission barriers
that we could remove if we wanted to, libre access is a range or spectrum.
When we want to refer to specific types, we can use named licenses. For
example, CC-BY and CC0 lie at the upper or most-free end of the libre
spectrum. The CC-BY license allows any use provided the user makes proper
attribution to the author. CC0 puts a work into the public domain and in
that way allows any use whatsoever.

In addition to the spike of recent progress for libre OA itself, there has
been a spike of recent discussion of the "gratis" and "libre" terminology.
See Postscript 2 below for a longer digression on these terms in response
to some of that discussion.

Quick preview: Some want the term "libre" to refer only to the most-free
end of the spectrum beyond gratis, not to the whole spectrum beyond gratis.
That's a discussion worth having. Meantime, this article covers libre
progress in the wider sense, or in the whole spectrum beyond gratis, and
includes many developments about libre in the narrower sense (at the
CC-BY/CC0 end of the spectrum). Hence, no matter where you stand on the
terminology, there's progress here worth noting. We shouldn't let
nomenclature disputes hide that fact.

Since I'll also be discussing "green" and "gold" OA, let me recap those
definitions as well. Green OA is OA delivered by repositories, regardless
of peer-review status, gratis/libre status, funding model, embargo period,
and so on. Gold OA is OA delivered by journals, regardless of peer-review
methods, gratis/libre status, business model, and so on. It should be clear
that the green/gold distinction is not the same as the gratis/libre
distinction. Green/gold is about venues or vehicles, while gratis/libre is
about user rights. For better or worse, there are four cases to keep
distinct:  gratis green, gratis gold, libre green, and libre gold. Most of
this article is on libre green, with a few remarks on libre gold.

(2) Past paucity of libre green OA

Until recently, libre green OA policies for research articles were
relatively rare, and we need to step back for a minute to appreciate that.
Here's a quick chronology.

The Wellcome Trust and UKPMC Funders Group broke the ice in 2007 by
requiring libre green OA whenever they paid any part of the costs of

But not even this policy required libre when the funder paid for the
underlying research without paying the costs of publication, not even when
the research costs were more than one hundred times larger than the
publication costs. Nevertheless, requiring libre when paying the costs of
publication was a natural first step.

When authors or their sponsors pay publishing costs, then publishers no
longer need to protect a revenue stream to cover the same costs. Once freed
of that business constraint, publishers can and ought to make the work
libre OA. Conversely, those paying the costs of publication should demand
libre in return for their payments. This should apply to universities an
individuals, not just to funders.

Nevertheless, even today, five years later, other funders have been slow to
follow the lead of the Wellcome Trust and the UKPMC Funders Group. In my
March 2012 comments on the draft new OA policy for the Research Councils
UK, I recommended that the RCUK adopt this sensible and well-tested policy.
But this recommendation was only necessary because the RCUK was not already
proposing to take this step.

The NIH has not taken this step either. Nor have most of the other funders
who routinely require gratis OA to the research they fund, even when they
are willing to pay the costs of publishing the results.

Meantime, most of the contents in most OA repositories are *Gratis* and not
libre. There's a good reason for this. Repositories are not in a position
to permit OA on their own and depend on the permissions granted by
rightsholders. Nevertheless, libre green OA has been growing for more than
a decade.

In 2001, only 7% of the articles deposited in UK PubMed Central (UKPMC)
carried open licenses permitting reuse. By 2009, that percentage had grown
to 33%, and in 2010 it jumped to 41%. In each of these years, of course,
100% of deposited articles were gratis OA.

The total volume of UKPMC was also growing in the same period, which means
that the libre green deposits would have grown in absolute numbers even if
their percentages had remained flat or even declined somewhat. In 2009,
there about 50,190 articles in UKPMC, in 2010 there were 69,123, and in
2011 there were almost 92,000. To have libre percentage growth on top of
that absolute growth is especially heartening.

In the US PubMed Central, the numbers are lower but the curve is still
sloping upwards. In his interview with the NIH Office for Extramural
Research last month, Richard Poynder reported that there were 2.4 million
articles in PMC, and 450,000 in the libre OA subset. That makes the libre
portion 18.75% of the whole, presumably for 2012.

(Hunch: The UK PMC percentage is higher than the US PMC percentage
precisely because members of the UKPMC Funders Group mandate libre green OA
when they pay any part of the costs of publication.)

The Harvard OA policies should be considered libre green policies, starting
with the first in February 2008. The policy grants the institution a wide
set of non-exclusive rights, and the terms of service for DASH, the
institutional repository, take good advantage of them. When an article is
in DASH, and when the permission to make it OA comes from the policy, then
users are allowed to "use, reproduce, distribute, and display
the...Article[] for: ...personal study; ...teaching (including distribution
of copies to students and use in coursepacks and courseware programs);
...research and scholarship (including computational research uses such as
data-mining and text-mining); and provision of value-added services
(including full-text searching, cross-referencing, and citation
extraction)...." That's not CC-BY, but it's way beyond fair use.

There are more than 30 university OA policies based on the Harvard model.
All of them are at least potentially libre, by granting the institution
enough rights to authorize libre access through the repository. But whether
they are actually libre depends on what the repository actually authorizes.
Unfortunately, no one has gone through all the repository terms-of-use
statements to see how many allow visitors to exceed fair use and in what
ways. (But if you're thinking it would be a good idea to check, I agree.)

In November 2008, the University of Liege enhanced its existing OA mandate
with a license equivalent to CC-BY-NC-ND for deposits in its repository.

In May 2009, the University of Oregon Library Faculty adopted an OA mandate
requiring their publications to disseminated under CC-BY-NC-ND licenses.

In October 2010, a $20 million funding program from the Gates Foundation,
the Next Generation Learning Challenges, mandated libre OA under CC-BY
licenses for publications arising from the funded research. I wish I could
say this was just the start of a string of other libre OA mandates (or even
gratis OA mandates) from the Gates Foundation, but I cannot.

In July 2010, eIFL reported that three OA repositories in China, Poland,
and South Africa provided libre green OA under CC licenses, and that three
others in Botswana, Poland and South Africa recommended it.

In addition from two schools within Harvard, six institutions adopted libre
green policies in 2010: the Library Faculty at Arizona State University,
Australian National University, the Library Faculty at Northern Colorado
University, University of Sassari, Sweden's Royal Library, the Washington
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) on behalf of 34

In January 2011, the US Departments of Labor and Education jointly
announced the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career
Training (TAACCCT), a four-year, $2 billion funding program for open
educational resources (OER) mandating libre OA under CC-BY licenses. This
was the first libre OA mandate from the US federal government, and I
believe it is still the only one.

(While I only know the one libre OA mandate from the Gates Foundation that
I noted above, in April 2011 Gates awarded a grant to Creative Commons to
support grantees funded by the TAACCCT libre OA mandate.)

In January 2011, eIFL updated its report on open licenses in developing and
transition countries. This time it found 10 repositories offering libre
green OA, including one OER repository in South Africa using CC-BY.

In June 2011, the Open Society Foundations (OSF) adopted a policy
encouraging grantees to make their funded work libre OA under CC-BY-NC-ND

Reminder: The CC-BY-NC-ND license used at Liege, Oregon, and OSF is
librein the broad sense (beyond gratis) but not in the narrow sense
(toward the
CC-BY end of the spectrum). No matter where you'd turn the libre knob, access
under this license is still an advance upon merely gratis access. If you
think it too weak to include it in a list of libre developments, then you
will acknowledge the main point of this section, which is that stronger
policies were rare during this period.

If we don't count open data policies, which are libre much more often than
OA policies for publications, then the TAACCCT and OSF policies, and the OA
policy at one more school at Harvard, were the only libre green policies
adopted in 2011. (If I'm overlooking any, please let me know!)

That's the sparse history of libre policies until quite recently. But
supplementing these adopted policies were some important recommendations.
(I'm limiting the list of recommendations to those from 2009 and beyond;
otherwise we'd have to go back to the Budapest statement and the list would
be very long.)

In May 2009, a group of major public and private funding agencies convened
by the the US Institute of Medicine called on funders of medical research
to mandate libre green OA ("without constraints of copyright").  The group
included the Gates Foundation, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Merck Company
Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, US Department of Health and Human
Services, US Department of Homeland Security, and US Department of State.

In August 2009, a report from Phil Malone and the Berkman Center
recommended that foundations "seriously consider" requiring libre OA under
open licenses for funded work.

In November 2009 the National Book Trust of Uganda recommended libre OA
books as the "best way for boosting educational quality" for Ugandan

Two bills introduced in the US Congress in 2009 would have required libre
OA to federally-funded textbooks. Neither bill passed.

In January 2010, the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable stopped short of
recommending OA mandates for publicly-funded research in the US, but didn't
hesitate to recommend that "the results of research...be published and
maintained in ways that maximize the possibilities for creative reuse...."

In January 2010, the joint OA mandate for Finland's 26 Universities of
Applied Sciences took effect (it was adopted in October 2009). It didn't
require libre green, but recommended it and automatically offered each
author the option of attaching the CC license of their choice to each
article deposited in the consortial repository.

In February 2010, the Online Guide to Open Access Journals Publishing
recommended libre gold OA under CC-BY licenses.

In August 2010, SPARC and Science Commons published a white paper by Simon
Frankel and Shannon Nestor, two lawyers at Covington and Burling, on legal
issues in university OA policies. Frankel and Nestor recommended the
Harvard-MIT model, which allows libre OA through the institutional

In January 2011, the Ghent Declaration to the European Commission called
for OA policies to require libre OA under CC-BY licenses.

In October 2011 the FORCE 11 Manifesto (for Future of Research
Communication and e-Scholarship 2011) called on researchers to distribute
their work in "conformance to OA licenses" and commit "to make all [their]
own scholarship as open as possible under the most liberal of those

(3) Past paucity of libre gold OA

Libre OA through repositories has been rare because most repositories are
not in a position to demand it or even to authorize it. Hence, you might
think that libre OA through journals would be common because all journals
are in a position to do both. But unfortunately that would be wrong. The
power of journals to demand and authorize libre OA means that libre gold
could be common, and should be common. But scandalously, it doesn't mean
that libre gold is already common.

The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) lists 7,774 peer-reviewed OA
journals. (The numbers in this section were current as of May 25, 2012.)

Of these, only 2,208 use some kind of Creative Commons license. That's only
28.4% of the full set.

A few OA journals use home-grown licenses equivalent to CC licenses, but
they are relatively rare. For present purposes we can say that roughly 70%
of OA journals don't use any kind of open license. Hence, about 70% offer
merely gratis OA and use all-rights-reserved copyrights.

Only 917 journals in the DOAJ have the SPARC Europe Seal of Approval, which
requires CC-BY. That's only 11.8% of the full set.

To be fair, the SPARC Europe Seal has two requirements:  using the CC-BY
license and sharing metadata with the DOAJ. Hence, some journals may fail
to earn the seal because they fall short in their metadata-sharing
practices, not in their licensing practices.

But for present purposes we can say that roughly 88% of OA journals don't
use CC-BY.

I've previously argued that OA journals have "no excuse" not to provide
libre OA under open licenses, and that the failure of the majority of them
to do so "is one of the largest missed opportunities of the OA movement to

The failure of 70% OA journals to offer any kind of open license is an
embarrassment. It shows that most OA journals don't understand the benefits
of libre OA, don't understand their own power to assure it, or both.

The most common response I've heard from merely gratis OA journals is that
they wish to block commercial use. But that is not responsive. A CC-BY-NC
license would block commercial use while still freeing users to exceed fair
use in other respects. The many voices recommending CC-BY (including my
own) should not obscure the fact that CC-BY-NC is much friendlier to users
and research than an all-rights-reserved copyright.

For the present argument, my main point is that libre gold is rare too,
even though it faces none of the impediments of libre green. In fact, the
percentage of journals in the DOAJ offering libre gold OA is smaller than
the percentage of articles in UKPMC offering libre green --an unexpected
and disappointing result. More disappointing:  the recent upturn in libre
green progress has no counterpart libre gold progress. Libre gold is
lower-hanging fruit than libre green, but it remains largely unplucked.

(4) Historical timing of libre green policies

Libre green policies have been scarce for a couple of good reasons, apart
from the fact that most repositories are not in a position to authorize it.

First, few publishers are willing to allow libre access. Most green OA, for
example, is made possible by permissions from toll-access (TA) publishers,
and conversely, most TA publishers permit green OA. But nearly all TA
publishers willing to permit *gratis* green OA are unwilling to permit
*libre* green OA.

Second, funding agencies and universities have their own reasons to adopt
strong OA policies in stages, and to put gratis before libre. They worry
that libre green mandates would trigger even higher levels of publisher
resistance and opposition than we see today, and make it harder for authors
bound such policies to publish their work. This concern is not answered by
rights retention. For even when authors retain the right to authorize OA,
publishers remain free to refuse to publish any work for any reason.

I think this concern is warranted, or has been warranted, and I've raised
it several times over the years. Each time, however, I've urged funders and
universities to watch for the moment when they could safely strengthen
gratis policies to libre.
4 and the conclusion)
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-02-11.htm#2010 (Section
https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/Y8zPSf5DP5W (Comment #1)

Alma Swan made a similar point in her new book for UNESCO on Policy
Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Open Access (April 2012).
>From Section 8.2.7 at p. 48: "Requiring libre Open Access is considered a
step too far at present, despite its promise for science, as it would make
it very difficult for authors to publish in journals of choice because of
publisher resistance. It is an issue for future policy, though that future
will not be too far ahead."

Publishers who oppose a strong OA policy at a small funder or university
could refuse to publish work by those grantees or faculty. But when large
funders and universities, and especially when many funders and universites,
adopt strong OA policies, publishers can no longer afford to refuse to
publish their work.

For example, the NIH is the largest funder of non-classified research in
the world, with a research budget larger than the gross domestic product of
140 nations. It's no accident that while many publishers speak against it,
not a single surveyed publisher refuses to publish NIH-funded authors.

This is one reason why the libre arc is bending. Some early steps have been
taken, some large OA-friendly institutions are warming to libre, many
OA-friendly institutions large and small are no longer willing to
subordinate their interests to the interests of publishers, and the only
players who might have been hurt by premature libre mandates --authors--
are joining the call for stronger OA policies. There's no decisive
historical turning point when the concerns that previously held back libre
policies are suddenly answered and powerless. So we can't say that the
moment has arrived when funders and universities can strengthen green OA
policies from gratis to libre. But we can say that the moment is arriving.

"[U]niversities [and funders] can act together without acting as a cartel
if critical numbers of them become courageous about seeking their own
interests at about the same time.  Without critical numbers and critical
timing, early requests will simply be rejected.  But as soon as some large
institutions or clusters of institutions start to win concessions, it will
be easier for the next institutions to make the same requests and build on
the momentum."

"If only one or two agencies adopted...[a] libre mandate, some publishers
might refuse to publish the work they funded.  But if this kind of libre
mandate became the norm, publishers would have to accommodate it."

(5) Recent rise of libre OA

Finally we can turn to the good news. Here's a catalog of recent libre
initiatives --where "recent" means in the past six months or so.

As in previous sections, I'm omitting open-data initiatives, but only
because they are more often libre than OA initiatives for texts.

In most cases I've been brief, so that I could say a little about many new
developments rather a lot about just a few. But for the first half dozen or
so, I couldn't resist the temptation to elaborate.

* Research Councils UK (RCUK)

The RCUK adopted gratis OA mandates in 2006. In mid March of this year they
released a draft upgrade to their policies and called for public comments
until April 10.

The new draft policy requires that "a user must be able to...re-use the
content of published papers both manually and using
automated tools (such as those for text and data mining) provided that any
such reuse is subject to proper attribution....The existing policy will be
clarified by specifically stating that Open Access includes unrestricted
use of manual and automated text and data mining tools.  Also, that it
allows unrestricted re-use of content with proper attribution – as defined
by the Creative Commons CC-BY licence."

Journals publishing RCUK-funded research must either (1) provide "immediate
and unrestricted access to the publisher's final version of the paper (the
Article of Record), and allow[] immediate deposit of the Article of Record
in a repository without restriction on re-use" or (2) "allow[] deposit of
the published paper (either the version as accepted for publication or the
Article of Record) within subject-based or institutional repositories, and
allows unrestricted access to those papers after an embargo period no
longer than that mandated by the Research Councils." In the former case,
the journal may charge a publication fee and the latter case it may not.

Mark Thorley of the Natural Environment Research Council summarized the
RCUK deliberations for Nature News in March: "Either green or gold is fine
with RCUK, so long as the open papers also have the CC-BY licence."

The RCUK have not published the comments they received or announced which
of the proposed policy enhancements they will adopt. But at least some of
the public comments supported the libre requirements. For example, my own
did, as did some others building on mine.

Other comments were less supportive of the turn toward libre and CC-BY. See
in particular the comments submitted by UKCoRR, Stevan Harnad, and Heather

The seven funding agencies making up the RCUK control the bulk of
publicly-funded research in the UK. Their existing gratis OA mandates
already make the UK a leader in national OA policies. If they strengthened
their policies to require libre, their size and influence could help elicit
publisher adaptation that would help other funders and universities
strengthen their policies as well.

* Wellcome Trust

Since 2007 (as noted in Section 2), the Wellcome Trust has required an open
license when it paid any part of the cost of publishing an article. But the
license it required was CC-BY-NC. This spring Wellcome announced plans to
shift to CC-BY.

In an April article for New Statesman, Wellcome's David Carr and Robert
Kiley wrote that "We will...ensure that where we pay an open access fee,
the content is freely available for all types of re-use (including
commercial re-use). This is in line with a recent draft policy published by
the UK Research Councils, which we strongly support."

In May, GenomeWeb Daily News reported that "Kiley said, at some time in the
near future, probably in 2013, the Wellcome Trust will shift to a creative
commons, attribution-only license model, under which it will only make
payments to publishers, such as Elsevier or the Public Library of Science,
if the publisher makes the research available for use and reuse by the
research community. 'We think that is the cleanest, most simple way of
insuring that the fruits of our research spending on all of these research
articles can be fully built upon and exploited....The best way we can
maximize the use of that research is by allowing anyone and everyone to
make use of that content,' and to use it for commercial purposes, Kiley
(Free registration required.)

In a private email (quoted with permission), Kiley explained Wellcome's
decision this way: "The current policy requires 'libre' OA, when we pay an
OA fee, but we accepted that CC-BY-NC counted as libre.  We are now of the
view that when we pay a fee the only acceptable license will be CC-BY,
which does allow commercial reuse, as well as other types of re-use.  We
need to communicate this change to the publishers used by Wellcome-funded
authors, so I anticipate that we will formally introduce this policy change
from January 2013, at hopefully the same time as RCUK also move to a CC-BY

* World Bank

The World Bank launched an institutional repository and adopted an OA
mandate on April 10, 2012.

Here are the libre features of the new policy:  when Bank research is
published by the Bank itself, then copies must be disseminated through the
institutional repository under CC-BY licenses. This policy applies to books
as well as articles. When Bank research is published by external
publishers, the preprints or working papers must be in the repository under
CC-BY licenses. The final versions of the peer-reviewed manuscripts must be
in the repository under CC-BY-NC-ND licenses, unless the publisher can be
persuaded to allow a more liberal license.

Also see the policy FAQ and repository FAQ.

The new OA policy follows on the bank's open data policy from April 2010.

For the purposes of OA policy, the World Bank is a peculiar institution. It
has something in common with universities, funders, and publishers, but it
doesn't fall neatly into any of those categories. It hires researchers. It
funds research, but so far only by its employees. It publishes some of its
own research, but not all of its own research and not research by others.
Primarily, it's a bank, and it's a peculiar even for a bank: created by
treaty, controlled by the votes of 187 member nations, and funded by
pledges from 45 nations. But it's a bank with a research division and a
publishing division. Its financial operations serve an overriding mission
to reduce poverty and foster development. Its research has the same ends,
and its open-data and OA policies are instrumental to those ends.

The RCUK called for comments on a draft policy to require CC-BY, but hasn't
yet adopted the policy. The Wellcome Trust announced plans to require CC-BY
when it pays publication fees, but hasn't yet made the transition. The
World Bank, however, has now adopted an OA mandate requiring CC-BY for a
significant portion of the research it funds. The Bank correctly describes
itself as "the first major international organization to require open
access under copyright licensing from Creative Commons."

The Bank's peculiar structure and mission may have enabled it to be the
first institution to take this significant step. But credit also goes to
the bank's leadership. In a September 2010 talk, Bank President Robert
Zoellick said, "This [new research model] will open the treasure chest of
the World Bank's data and knowledge to every village health care worker,
every researcher, everyone....Above all, we must look beyond an 'elite
retail' model of research. No longer can the model solely be to research a
specific issue and write a paper hoping someone will read it. The new model
must be 'wholesale' and networked. It must increasingly open information
and knowledge to others by giving them the tools to do the economic
research themselves."

In an April 2012 interview with Richard Poynder, Bank Publisher Carlos
Rossel said, "When the decisions on Open Data and Open Access were made the
focus was not on lost revenues but on the cost of not opening our data or
adopting an OA publishing model, for our clients and for development."

For several perspectives on the new policy, with frequent emphasis on the
benefits of libre OA under open licenses, see the panel discussion at the
Bank's May 21 launch event in Washington. (Disclosure: I was a panelist.)

* Willetts initiative in the UK

In May 2012, David Willetts, the UK Science Minister, supplemented the RCUK
draft policy with plans for a strong and comprehensive OA policy for the

The details are being hammered out by the Working Group on Expanding Access
to Published Research Findings (WGEAPRF), also known as the Finch group
after its chair, Dame Janet Finch.

The group will release its report later this month. In the meantime, the
Finch Group has released the minutes of its first four meetings.

The minutes make clear that the Group wants to assure some kind of libre
OA, even if it is also concerned about its effects on publishers.

(Thanks to Stephen Curry for pointing out the libre theme in these minutes.)

For example:

>From the minutes of October 17, 2011:  "The [Working Group]...confirmed,
for the purpose of its work, its understanding about the scope of access:
...that it relates to re-use of published work as well as reading."

>From the minutes of December 1, 2011:  "There is also a concern that
national licensing is not as likely as OA to address re-use."

>From the minutes of February 22, 2012:  "The sub-group [on author-side
payments] had also agreed that author-side payments should bring with them
full rights of re-use....The [plenary Working Group] also considered the
definitions of and the proposed additions to the success criteria. It was
agreed that...assessment of increases in access should include
consideration of issues relating to any restrictions on rights of re-use."

>From the minutes from April 27, 2012: "David Sweeney reported that [the
still-forthcoming position statement from the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE) on the Research Excellence Framework (REF)] is
founded on the Government's innovation strategy. Material submitted to REF
for assessment beyond the 2014 exercise should thus generally be made
freely available – although the detail, in terms of the extent to which
this applies to re-use, has not yet been determined. Publishers feel that
this too poses the question about how such a policy might be
sustained....There is a need for clarity about what licences should cover,
given the distinction between read-only and re-use rights. Here too,
sustainability is an important factor. Nonetheless, the Group felt that the
policy should stress that there should be as few restrictions as possible
for use and re-use, including text and data mining."

When Willetts created the Finch Group last September, its charge was "to
look at how UK-funded research findings can be broadened for key audiences
such as researchers, policy makers and the general public."

Now it appears that the Finch Group wants re-use rights (libre OA), and
will recommend them for UK-funded research. In that sense, its
recommendations will complement those already under consideration by the

There's another libre implication as well. The April 2012 minutes tell us
that the Research Excellence Framework (REF), the latest incarnation of the
UK research assessment exercise, "should" require some kind of OA after
2014, but that "the extent to which this applies to re-use, has not yet
been determined." Hence, the OA requirement to be built into the REF might
require some degree of libre OA as well. This matters because the body of
UK-funded research plus REF-submitted research is larger than the body of
UK-funded research alone. The REF policy would significantly extend the
scope of a libre policy, even if the terms of the REF libre policy were not
quite the same as the terms of the RCUK libre policy.

Willetts himself has used similar though less explicit language.  "He
suggested [to the Times Higher Education] that open access 'could be among
the excellence criteria for qualifying articles' for REF rounds beyond
2014. A spokesman for the Higher Education Funding Council for England said
that Mr Willetts was referring to a proposal being considered by the
funding councils to require articles submitted for the REF to be freely
available 'as far as possible'...."

Note the phrase "as far as possible". It might mean that articles submitted
to the REF articles will be as open as possible, hence libre. Or it might
mean that as many articles as possible will be gratis. The HEFCE report
too, like the Finch Group report, will appear later this month, and then
we'll know for sure.

* @ccess

In February 2012, the Open Knowledge Foundation launched @ccess, a new
initiative focusing on libre OA.

Here's the @ccess mission, in the words of two of its co-founders.

Peter Murray-Rust: "Today we have launched @ccess – a new site, and more
importantly a new community – to make scholarly information REALLY LIBRE
available....By LIBRE we mean free to use, re-use, and redistribute for any
purpose. It's covered by the Open Knowledge Definitions and the actual text
of the Budapest Declaration on Open Access 10 years ago."

Tom Olijhoek: "Because open access can range from somewhat restricted (only
free reading) to completely unrestricted (completely free for use and
reuse) we have proposed to coin the term @ccess for free and unrestricted
access to information in accordance with the BBB definition...."

In addition to libre OA, @ccess is committed to networking researchers and
interlinking pieces of knowledge. All three goals are present in its first
major project, the malaria initiative. @ccess and "MalariaWorld...are
developing a comprehensive database of malaria related publications. At the
same time we will ask researchers to deposit their manuscripts and data in
an open access repository that is linked to the database. This database
will also link to open access articles. For restricted access publications
we will seek to get as many manuscripts as possible deposited in the
database as well. The community will eventually provide open access to all
information, provide a platform for collaboration and information exchange
and serve as a communication platform for everyone seeking information on,
or working on malaria.  Other communities can be formed using this model.
In this way we would move towards a system of interlinked scientific
communities and easy access to pertinent information through these

* Text mining

In March 2012, JISC released a major report on the value and benefits of
text mining.

The report not only points out that priced access blocks text mining, but
that permission barriers on gratis works can also block mining. "Current UK
copyright restrictions...mean that most text mining in UKFHE is based on
Open Access documents or bespoke arrangements. This means that the
availability of material for text mining is limited....As several
consultees highlighted, ...most text mining is limited to exploring Open
Access documents where no additional charges are incurred....Even where
text mining is allowed within publisher contracts, licensing terms that
require the full attribution of derivative works developed in the text
mining process can effectively prevent text mining usage. For example, the
Open Access publisher BioMed has such a licence, allowing text mining and
the production of derivative works, provided the relevant attribution is
made. However, where text mining is used to identify new knowledge derived
from cross-article analysis of patterns, it is effectively impossible to
identify all relevant attributions that contributed to the new derived
knowledge. This therefore means that such text mining cannot be

In April, Heather Piwowar asked Elsevier to allow text mining, and after
some negotiation the company agreed.

Piwowar's victory was a breakthrough for text mining, and for uses that not
even gratis OA would allow. But her one-off negotiation triggered a larger
discussion of how to reach the same result for all researchers and all
publishers with out an endless series of one-off negotiations. The buzz
quickly moved beyond congratulations to a revolution of rising
expectations. For some of the details, see the (OA) SPARC interview with
Piwowar on this project, the (TA) coverage in the Chronicle of Higher
Education, and the (OA) coverage in The Guardian (with a large trail of
reader comments).

A few days after her Elsevier victory, Piwowar asked on her blog whether a
text-mining manifesto might be a good idea, and jotted some notes toward a
future manifesto. The next month, Peter Murray-Rust posted some additional
notes toward a manifesto.

A drafting group is now writing a manifesto. The group isn't ready to
release a draft, but it will clearly recommend libre OA as one of the
prerequisites. (Disclosure: I'm a time-starved, under-contributing member
of the group.)

Although I want to stick to recent developments in this section, any
coverage of text-mining breakthroughs should note that the Hargreaves
report in May 2011 recommended a UK copyright exception to allow mining,
and in August 2011 the UK government committed itself to implement that

For the literature on how OA facilitates text mining, from Steve Dickman in
2003 ("Access is a bigger problem than algorithms") to Ross Mounce last
week ("I have 20,000+ PLoS articles on my computer right now")...
...see my past blog posts on the subject and the "oa.mining" tag library
from the OA Tracking Project.

* Digitization projects

In March 2012, the US National Gallery of Art launched NGA Images, a new
collection of downloadable, high-res digital reproductions of public-domain
artworks. At the same time the gallery announced an OA policy for the new
collection: "With the launch of NGA Images, the National Gallery of Art
implements an open access policy for digital images of works of art that
the Gallery believes to be in the public domain. Images of these works are
now available free of charge for any use, commercial or non-commercial.
Users do not need to contact the Gallery for authorization to use these
images....The Gallery believes that increased access to high quality images
of its works of art fuels knowledge, scholarship, and innovation, inspiring
uses that continually transform the way we see and understand the world of
art. Works in the public domain are those not subject to copyright
protection. The Gallery has launched this open access policy with works it
believes to be in the public domain, but is hoping gradually to include
additional works whose public domain status is currently uncertain...."

The gallery does not use CC0 or any other item-level indication that
public-domain works are public-domain. On the contrary, unfortunately.
Image pages link to the terms-of-use page, which says that "the contents of
this site, including all images and text, are for personal, educational,
non-commercial use only." There's a stark contradiction between the OA
policy and the terms of use, embarrassing for the gallery and confusing for

Because the OA policy is new and consciously publicized, my guess is that
the gallery will stand by the new policy and bring the older TOS page into
conformity with it. But I don't know that. I've alerted the gallery to the
contradiction and asked how it plans to resolve it. If I get a reply, I'll
blog it.

(Aside: It's remarkable how rare it was until recently to hear a major
museum or digitization project explicitly and emphatically announce the
principle that digital reproductions of public-domain works are themselves
in the public domain. I credit Cornell University with a public statement
in May 2009 that raised consciousness about this principle and precipitated
a series of other notable statements.
For a fuller discussion of the principle, see my article in the July 2009
SOAN, reprinted with some revisions by Nobel Foundation in April 2011.
For some major post-Cornell affirmations of the principle, including
statements from the EU Culture and Education Committee, the Europeana
Public Domain Charter, the Australian Collecting Institutions, the EU
Reflection Group or Comité des Sages, and Yale University, see my article
in the June 2011 SOAN.)

* OA journals

In January 2012, Springer's Open Choice journals converted from CC-BY-NC to
CC-BY. The company's hybrid OA journals now use the same license as its
full OA journals, including the full OA journals from its subsidiary,
BioMed Central.

This is good news, but unfortunately it's the only recent news I have under
this heading. Where are the other OA journals moving from more restrictive
licenses to less restrictive licenses like CC-BY? For that matter, where
are the OA journals moving from gratis access and all-rights-reserved
copyrights to libre access under open licenses?

It's possible license upgrades like Springer's happen more often than they
are formally announced. But I'm afraid they simply don't happen very often.

* Books

In December 2012 State Senator Tom Steinberg proposed two bills to allocate
public funds to create OA college textbooks under CC licenses. In May 2012
one bill passed the Senate and moved on to the Assembly. The other bill is
still pending.

In February 2012, MIT OpenCourseWare and Flat World Knowledge joined forces
to create OA textbooks under CC licenses.

Also in February, the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR)
and National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education (NITLE) launched
Anvil Academic, a new publishing platform for enhanced OA books under open

In May 2012, Eric Hellman launched Unglue.it, a crowdfunding service to
raise money to convert already-published books to OA and distribute them
under open licenses.

* Licenses

In February 2012, the Open Knowledge Foundation launched its Open
Definition Licenses Service. The new service "provides...[1] Information on
licenses for open data, open content, and open-source software in machine
readable form (JSON), and [2] A simple web API that allows you retrieve
this information over the web — including using javascript in a browser via

In March 2012, Ross Mounce released the first draft of a crowd-sourced
survey of open licenses (if any) used by various journal publishers. "This
spreadsheet is an attempt to survey scholarly communications (primarily
research journals) to find out which publishers are producing 'open access'
articles/journals, and what each of these publishers *mean* by 'open
access' with reference (preferably) to an explicit license statement, or
some evidence thereof....Analysis of the data collected so far shows that
less than 5% of publishers claiming 'open access' actually provide
explicitly BOAI-compliant Open Access."

Just last week, Wikipedia launched an article on "Libre" (on libe in
general, not just libre software or libre access). It has a subsection on
libre licenses, and another subsection on how the term is used in the OA

* Obama administration policy

In November 2011 the White House Office for Science and Technology Policy
called for public comments on federal OA policy. In January 2012 it
released the comments it received.

It hasn't released a detailed summary. But it released a brief summary
--silent on libre issues-- in April (dated March). There's ground for
optimism: "Responses to those RFIs are being analyzed now, [and] initial
results show strong public support for increasing access to scholarly
publications describing the results of federally funded research and for
improving scientific data management and access."

In the call for comments, the White House posed a specific set of questions
about OA for publications and OA for data. One question about OA
publications asked, "What type of access to these publications is required
to maximize U.S. economic growth and improve the productivity of the
American scientific enterprise?" Many respondents took this as an
invitation to discuss gratis v. libre access. As a result, the White House
received many comments urging it not only to extend the NIH policy across
the federal government, but to strengthen it from gratis to libre. Here are
seven examples:

>From the American Library Association and Association of College and
Research Libraries: "The complete collection of articles resulting from
publicly funded research should be made immediately freely accessible, so
that the public can fully use them – (i.e.
text mine, data mine, compute on them, create derivative works) without
commercial restriction....The NIH public access policy for federally
research has proven to be a good model. However, further mandates should
reduce the allowable embargo period for public access to research articles
and take steps to enhance the ability of users to reuse the material they
find in the repositories"

>From the Association of Research Libraries:  "[T]wo reports described below
provide clear evidence that openly available resources with no reuse
restrictions promoted economic growth and created new jobs and
markets....Extending public access policies that permit full use and reuse
rights with no cost barriers will significantly enhance STEM education,
level the playing field, and generate more economic growth and job creation
in diverse new areas....In order to maximize the investments in cyber and
information infrastructure, advance science, and promote innovation, free
immediate access with full reuse rights to federally funded research
literature would achieve the most benefits."

>From the Berkeley Digital Library Copyright Project:  "Most importantly,
extensibility requires  that licenses  to the covered works  be tied not to
the particular entity hosting the works, but rather to the ultimate use of
the work, which is available to all hosting entities (and users). License
terms should also be permissive in the uses they allow, being careful to
expand and not contract the uses to which libraries and end users may put
the covered works. Existing exceptions to copyright, such as fair use or
the library exceptions codified in Section 108 of the Copyright Act should
not be limited by license terms. Contractual limitations on these
exceptions have frustrated library efforts to increase online access for
their patrons in the past, and such limitations could similarly bind
federally funded research in a way that prevents useful access and that
curtails future productive uses of these works. These are precisely the
type of activities that existing copyright exceptions (and in particular,
fair use) are designed to foster."

>From Creative Commons:  "Scholarly articles created as a result of
federally funded research should be released under full open access. Full
open access policies will provide to the public immediate, free-of-cost
online availability to federally funded research without restriction except
that attribution be given to the source....[T]he NIH Public Access Policy
does not go far enough in communicating the rights for reuse that should be
available to the public that paid for the development and publication of
that research. Releasing the outputs of federally funded research free of
cost online should be a baseline, but if downstream users (including
researchers within the same domain, scholars from other disciplines,
creative entrepreneurs, government employees, citizens) are unclear about
their legal right to copy, amend and redistribute the federally funded
research, those publications will be reused less. This will significantly
diminish the potential impact of the research—and, by extension, the
public's investment."

>From Harvard University:  "One type of public access merely provides
research results online free of charge. A second type provides research
results free of charge and free of certain copyright restrictions. Only the
second type frees research for data- and text-mining, translation,
conversion to new formats, integration with other tools and bodies of
research, and other value-added services. Hence the second type does far
more than the first to amplify the benefits of publicly funded research.
Limiting the reuse of publicly funded research limits the return on our
investment. If we are serious about maximizing that return on investment,
we must lift restrictions on use and reuse, not just restrictions on access
for reading. The public access policy at the NIH does just the former....In
August [2011], Phil Malone and Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet &
Society released a report evaluating the copyright licensing policies used
by certain public and private funding agencies.  The report recommended
that research funders require the use of open licenses for funded research.
 It articulates nine benefits of open licenses for researchers and the
funders themselves....We recommend the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY)
license....We recommend against licenses that bar commercial use (such as
CC-BY-NC), in part because they would limit the utility of publicly funded
research for businesses and industry."

>From MIT:  "In order to maximize the growth of existing markets and develop
new markets associated with peerreviewed publications from federally funded
research, the entire corpus of articles that have derived from publicly
funded research should be made available for public use and reuse. This
means not only being able to read the articles, but being able to create
new works from them, and being able to use mechanized tools to analyze them
or derive data from them. While making the articles openly available for
reading would speed science, making the articles available for reuse would
also enable the development of new services and products....Public access
policies that include open reuse rights (not simply ‘read-only’ access)
allow the mining of information and encourage the creation of new tools and
the use of new tools, thus providing access to key scientific knowledge
more quickly, and offering faster application of that knowledge.   When
there is full open access, including reuse rights, machines can become
readers, fostering new layers of connection and innovation that are not
possible through human-based processing."

>From the Oberlin Group of Libraries:  "Access should be free of charge and
should include a broad range of re-use rights so that users can build on
and innovate from the research that they find. Providing open access to
federally funded scientific and scholarly research reports – including full
rights to re-use or mine these reports – allows more users to stay abreast
of cutting-edge ideas, access these ideas quickly, and generate new uses
and applications from this research, speeding the launch of new services
and products into the marketplace and energizing the economy....We urge
full open access as the norm: free, immediate access with full rights of
re-use. Restrictions on access or on use simply reduce the return on
taxpayer investment – whether that return is in the education of new
researchers or the entry of new products and services into the marketplace."

* Postscript 1.

A few notable recent OA initiatives are silent on libre. I don't want to
list them all, but I do want to list a few.

The Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) is silent on libre. It would
mandate gratis OA for most publicly-funded research in the US, but only
gratis OA.

Likewise Europe's Horizon 2020 program is silent on libre. It will mandate
gratis OA for most EU-funded research, but only gratis OA.

These major OA mandates are silent on libre for the same reason that other
funder mandates are silent on libre. They're about access to peer-reviewed
articles based on research arising from certain funders, not about access
to articles for which the funder has paid a publication fee. So far no
funding agency anywhere requires libre OA to the research they fund unless
they also pay the costs of publication. I hope that changes. But we're not
there yet.

FRPAA is already drafted and final; the only question is whether supporters
can muster enough votes. But Horizon 2020 will not be final until the
European Commission votes on its final form in November 2012. What will
happen if all seven of the Research Councils UK firmly commit to libre OA
for RCUK-funded research in time for the EC to take note, absorb the
arguments, and consider amendments? No one can say, today, and the answer
may be up to us.

The CostOfKnowledge petition and Elsevier boycott are silent on libre. This
includes the short statement on the petition site as well the longer
statement from its founders.

I believe the petition is silent on libre for the same reason that many
earlier initiatives are silent on libre. When we don't even have gratis OA,
it's prudent to start with gratis.

Finally, the White House OA petition is silent on OA. This was deliberate,
just as the petition is deliberately silent on the length of embargo
periods. As John Wilbanks explains, "The petition is simple because of two
reasons. One, you only get 800 characters to work with. That's not
something conducive to nuance. Second, it's simple because we want a
positive response from the Administration, and by staying simple we allow a
little bit of flexibility to them as they respond."

(Aside: If you haven't already signed the petition, sign it now! If you
haven't already spread the word about it, spread it now!)

* Postscript 2. More on terminology.

One recent development is the rise in the number of people calling for the
term "OA" to mean libre and nothing but libre. In a 2004, I took this
position myself.

But by 2008, I had to concede that the term "OA" had drifted to cover both
gratis and libre access. (In fact, I was already complaining about drift in
the 2004 article.) Moreover, I had to concede the separate point that
changing the actual usage of speakers and writers was an unwinnable fight.

Individual writers might use "OA" as if it meant libre and libre only, but
others will continue to use it for gratis access as well. This is not a
normative question about what a term ought to mean, but a descriptive
question about how a term is actually used.

The question is what to do about that drift. In the same 2008 article I
argued that the drift didn't hinder us from speaking precisely,
recommending the policies we actually want, arguing that libre is superior
to gratis, or arguing that one particular stripe of libre is superior to
another. I still believe that as well. The drift is completely harmless if
we take the trouble to say what we mean. The gratis/libre distinction, and
a range of named licenses, allow us to do that.

I sympathize with the argument that the term "OA" should be used as defined
in the BBB documents, which all demand libre. I especially sympathize with
the argument that the term should be used in the Budapest sense, since the
Budapest statement first introduced the term and defined it. I was the
chief draft of the Budapest statement, and I haven't retreated an inch in
my support for it. But none of this makes the dift in usage go away. To
speak about libre OA today, and make ourselves clear to a mixed audience,
we need an adjective like "libre" or "Budapest" in front of "OA". I don't
mind that. As I said in 2008, "That's more than winnable. It's easy."

Apart from the terms we prefer to use, we must recognize the distinction
between works that are gratis and works that are more free than gratis.
Moreover, we must recognize the distinctions within the spectrum of
licenses that make work more free than gratis. For example, if we limited
"OA" to libre access, we'd still need a generic term for works that are at
least free of charge (gratis or libre or both). Right now, like it or not,
"OA" plays that role. If we limited "libre" to works at the upper or
most-free end of that spectrum, we'd still need a term for the wider range
of works that are "more free than gratis".

Since 2008 I've used "gratis" to mean free of charge (like the FLOSS
community), and "libre" to mean "more free than gratis". But I acknowledge
that the FLOSS community uses "libre" for the narrower range at most-free
end of the scale. This isn't a disagreement about licenses, policy, or
freedom; it's a divergence of diction. In my 2008 article, I emphasized the
ways in which the meanings of "gratis" and "libre" were alike in FLOSS and
OA. But since then the differences present even then have become more
evident to some activists in both domains. If we can find a term that we
all agree means "more free than gratis", and another pair of terms for the
less-free and more-free ends of that spectrum, I think we'd all be happy. I
know I would. As I said in my 2008 article, my decision to use "libre" in
the wider sense ("more free than gratis") is "provisional in the sense that
I'll continue to look for better terms."

Meantime, I don't think "libre" is a bad choice for "more free than
gratis". If you asked 100 randomly picked members of the FLOSS community
for a term that meant "more free than gratis", without priming the pump,
I'd bet that most would offer "libre". Nevertheless, whether we think the
diction similarities between the communities outweigh the differences, or
vice versa, the differences remain, and it would be desirable to iron them
out. We just have to beware that a person or a committee can't change
actual usage just by wishing to change it.

The good news is that we have a useful recourse no matter what happens to
usage. As I wrote in 2008, "What's the best way to refer to a specific type
of [more-free-than-gratis] OA? With a license. We'll never have
unambiguous, widely-understood technical terms for every useful variation
on the theme. But we're very likely to have clear, named licenses for every
useful variation on the theme, and we're already close. Licenses are more
precise than single terms and not nearly as susceptible to misunderstanding
or divergent usage."


Five years ago in SOAN

SOAN for April 2, 2007

* The lead essay in that issue:  "Paying for green open access"

Excerpt:  "Two announcements in March showed that some publishers want to
charge for OA archiving and at least one foundation is willing to pay for
it.  Neither amounts to a trend, but both could slow the progress of green
OA, either by the direct imposition of new and needless costs or by
confusing policy-makers about the economics of green OA. First the American
Chemical Society (ACS) re-announced its hybrid journal program,
AuthorChoice, and reminded us that authors who wish to self-archive must
pay the AuthorChoice fee.  Then Elsevier and the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute (HHMI) agreed that when an HHMI-funded author publishes in an
Elsevier journal, HHMI will pay Elsevier a fee to deposit the peer-reviewed
postprint in PubMed Central six months after publication.  Here's a closer
look at each policy....[W]hat's wrong with this picture?  HHMI is paying a
fee for green OA.  Despite its fee, HHMI is not getting immediate OA.
 Despite its fee, HHMI is not getting OA to the published version of the
article.  Elsevier (beyond Cell Press) is even lengthening its embargo
period.  Elsevier is permitting embargoed deposits in PMC, but it already
permits free and unembargoed deposits in IRs.  Actually making the deposits
is a semi-automated clerical task that doesn't come close to justifying
these fees....."

SOAN for May 2, 2007

* The lead essay in that issue:  "Trends favoring open access"

Excerpt:  "This article began with a simple attempt to identify trends that
were changing scholarly communication.  I expected to find trends that were
supporting the progress of OA and trends that were opposing it or slowing
it down.  The resulting welter of conflicting trends might not give comfort
to proponents or opponents of OA, or to anyone trying to make predictions,
but at least it would describe this period of dynamic flux.  It might even
explain why OA wasn't moving faster or slower than it was. But with few
exceptions I only found trends that favored OA.  Maybe I have a blind spot
or ten.  I'll leave that for you to decide.  I'm certainly conscious of
many obstacles and objections to OA, and address them every day.  The
question is which of them represent trends that are gaining ground...."

SOAN for June 2, 2007

* The lead essay in that issue:   "Balancing author and publisher rights"

Excerpt:  "In order for authors to provide OA to their own work, they don't
need to retain full copyright, and in order for publishers to publish, they
don't need to acquire full copyright.  This raises the hope that we might
find a balance giving each side all it needs.  But even with good will on
both sides, this win-win compromise may be out of reach; each side might
give and receive significant concessions and still not have all it
needs....[O]n May 9, three publisher associations released a position paper
titled, "Author and Publisher Rights For Academic Use: An Appropriate
Balance."   The three groups were the ALPSP (Association of Learned and
Professional Society Publishers), AAP/PSP (Association of American
Publishers / Professional/Scholarly Publishing), and STM (International
Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers)....The
publishers are arguing that because they add value to the publication, they
deserve exclusive rights in it....This is neither balanced nor good for
research....[T]here are three problems here.  First, authors, referees, and
funders provider valuable services that enhance the same final product,
competing with the publishers' claim to exclusive rights....Second, a
significant fraction of publisher revenue doesn't come from the value they
add but from price increases made possible by monopoly power and market
dysfunction.  Reducing their prices to the value they add would be a nice
change.  And third, in order to keep the revenue stream flowing, publishers
take many steps that actually subtract value from the final product, such
as password protection, packaging in locked PDFs, cutting good articles
solely for length, turning processable data into unprocessable images, and
turning gifts into commodities which may not be further shared....If
publishers really need the rights this position paper says they need, then
no win-win balance is possible...."


Ten years ago in SOAN

Ten years ago, SOAN was called FOSN (Free Online Scholarship Newsletter)
and came out several times a month.  Here are excerpts from 13 issues 10
years ago this quarter.

* FOSN for March 11, 2002

Excerpt:  "If asked for a precedent for the kind of revolution represented
by [OA], we might first mention the Gutenberg Press.  But it isn't a very
good fit.  It's a technological advance, and all the technology required
for [OA] already exists.  We're trying to bring about an economic change
that will take advantage of existing technology.  If we want an example of
an economically sustainable industry which gives away its product to
end-users because the costs of production and distribution are paid by
others, then we need look no further than television and radio....But
television and radio were "born free" (for end-users)....But most scholarly
journals were born priced.  If future journals are to be free for
end-users, then we must transform their business model.  Are there
precedents for this?  Can you think of a product that was unfree for
end-users at one time, and became free at a later time, because an
intervening economic revolution shifted the costs from end-users to others?
...I've thought of one precedent:  mail.  The postage stamp allowed us to
change the funding model for letters, newspapers, and other mail, from
"recipient pays" to "sender pays"....Bear with me now...."

* FOSN for March 18, 2002

Excerpt:  "One of the myriad ways that sophisticated software will help
researchers is to write short summaries of digital articles.  Imagine
succinct, AI-generated summaries accompanying URLs in a search engine.
 Imagine bookmarking a hundred relevant-looking articles for a research
project and siccing a summarizer on them to see which deserve a full read.
 Imagine right-clicking on a paragraph of postmodern discourse, and
selecting "cut the crap" from a pop-up menu....To see where this technology
is today, visit the Columbia Newsblaster, an AI news portal from Columbia
University's NLP (Natural Language Processing) Group.  Newsblaster collects
news in real time from a dozen major free online sources, and breaks it
into general categories (e.g. U.S. World, Science) and specific topics
(e.g. stem cell research).  Then it writes its own summary of the news on
each topic, and gives links to full stories for those who want to read
more....Imagine a "Researchblaster" for your discipline, harvesting the
growing number of free, online, full-text articles, and offering accurate
summaries organized by category and topic.  The Columbia NLP Group is
working on such a system for the field of medicine...."

* FOSN for March 25, 2002

Excerpt:  "The Church of Scientology (CoS) believes that many pages hosted
at Xena.net violate its copyright....CoS asked Google to stop returning
links to those pages in searches.  Google complied.  The DMCA shields web
sites from liability for hosting or linking to infringing sites, but only
if they remove them promptly when notified.  The legal pressure on Google
to comply arose both from the DMCA requirement of promptness, eliminating
the opportunity to ascertain whether a real infringement had occurred, and
the DeCSS precedent...which prohibits links to infringing content just as
much as infringement itself.  Google has a procedure to reinstate links
deleted in this way, but it can only be applied after the content is
blocked and for some its complexity may require the assistance of a
lawyer....The problem lies with the DMCA, not with Google. Here's one
reason why this case is relevant to online scholarship.  The DMCA creates
pressures that distort search engine return lists.  It's one thing when
their omissions corresponded to illegal content.  But this case shows that
many omissions correspond to nothing more than lawyers' threatening
letters.  Insofar as search engines make sites visible, the DMCA has given
copyright holders a veto on a site's visibility, a veto they can apply
without going to court and proving infringement....Google was guilty of
nothing more than accuracy in showing which sites were online and relevant
to certain queries.  The DeCSS case showed that accurate linking can
violate the DMCA; now we know that an accurate search index can also
violate the DMCA, or at least that lawyers can cite the DMCA when
threatening a lawsuit to prevent accuracy.  Accuracy has become an offense."

* FOSN for April 1, 2002

Excerpt:  "The Data Quality Act (DQA) is a federal statute adopted under
the Clinton Administration and due to take effect October 1, 2002.  The law
allows "affected persons" to criticize scientific information or data
disseminated by any federal agency and used in its rule-making.  If the
criticisms are valid, then the agencies must correct their information and
delete the old information from their web sites and publications.  Agencies
will determine on their own when the criticisms are valid.  While each
agency will have its own evaluation procedure, all must follow guidelines
handed down by the present, Bush-era Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
 These guidelines contain a presumption in favor of peer-reviewed
information, but the presumption is rebuttable in special circumstances.
Proponents of the DQA argue that it will improve the quality of all
government regulations that depend on empirical data, including those that
protect food, drugs, and the environment.  Opponents worry that it will
give businesses an incentive to criticize the data underlying regulations
they dislike and create a blizzard of paperwork, procedural objections, and
statistical sophistry to supplement traditional forms of lobbying....The
DQA evaluation procedure cannot be called peer review, because the
critiques it must evaluate may come from uncredentialed protesters with a
commercial or political interest in the outcome, rather than scientific
peers, and because the procedures for evaluating these critiques are
designed by a political branch of government.  But neither can the
evaluation procedure be considered mere voting or lobbying on scientific
matters, because the critiques will be evaluated by scientific panels and
because the guidelines generally (but not always) defer to peer review...."

* FOSN for April 8, 2002

Excerpt:  "What do search engines, web filters, current awareness services,
and peer review have in common?  They all help us churn haystacks and find
needles, or process noise and find signals.  They help us navigate the
wilderness of information.  Pick your metaphor, or try this
non-metaphorical way to look at it.  Let's say that first-order scientific
or scholarly judgments are judgments about what is true or probably true in
astrophysics, organic chemistry, French history, epistemology, or any other
field of academic research.  First-order judgments are what scientists and
scholars primarily produce in their roles as scientists and scholars.
 Let's say that second-order judgments are judgments about which
first-order judgments you ought to read.  Search engines, web filters,
current awareness services, and peer review give us second-order judgments.
 They are just a few of the many sources of second-order judgments,
alongside card catalogues, book catalogues, tables of contents, spam
filters, and informal networks of pointers and recommendations by trusted
friends and authorities....Today there are several incentives for
publishers to make scholarly literature freely available online...One
incentive that is weak today and will become stronger over time is to
provide scholarly content to the far-flung, distributed swarm of services
processing [OA literature] and turning it into second-order judgments on
which scholars rely to learn what is relevant, what is worthy, and what is
new....The beauty of second-order tools using first-order scholarship as
data is that there can never be too many of them....Second-order judgments
are valuable even when they conflict, because different users have
different needs, interests, projects, standards, and approaches.  You
should have a choice among services competing to help you decide what
deserves your time and attention....Part of academic freedom is to have a
free market in first-order judgments.  By this I only mean that scientists
and scholars need the freedom to take a stand on what is true or probably
true in their field, and be immune from every kind of retaliation, except
disagreement and criticism, for doing so....As first-order science
continues to flourish, and as information overload worsens, an essential
part of academic life, as vital as academic freedom, will be a free market
of second-order judgments....[OA] will inspire the development of
second-order tools that take [OA literature] as data.  These tools are not
only a remedy to information overload.  They are the only remedy that
doesn't require reducing the output of science and scholarship."

* FOSN for April 15, 2002

Excerpt:  "The problem of excessive accessibility arises when somebody
thinks certain information should be hard to find, even if by law or policy
it has to be made public or available to those who need it.  In past issues
I've covered the problem as it arises for criminal records..., court
records..., phone numbers..., and information that might be useful to
terrorists....  It doesn't arise often for literature and scholarship, but
this week it arose twice....The Authors Guild is complaining that Amazon
sells used books on the same page as new books....[On] the American
Scientist ("September98") forum...Sally Morris for the Association of
Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) [argued] that society
journals are not threatened when authors put their articles on their own
home pages, but that posting articles to OAI-compliant archives is
"considerably more alarming".  The reason is that making the articles
"organized and cross-searchable" makes them excessively accessible...."

* FOSN for April 22, 2002

Excerpt:  "The Canadian Supreme Court has recently found what the U.S. has
lost, a balance between copyright holders and content readers, users, and
consumers.  Quoting the opinion [Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit
Champlain]:  'The proper balance among these and other public policy
objectives lies not only in recognizing the creator's rights but in giving
due weight to their limited nature....Once an authorized copy of a work is
sold to a member of the public, it is generally for the purchaser, not the
author, to determine what happens to it.  Excessive control by holders of
copyrights and other forms of intellectual property may unduly limit the
ability of the public domain to incorporate and embellish creative
innovation in the long-term interests of society as a whole, or create
practical obstacles to proper utilization.' "

Excerpt:  "If this call for war [against "digital piracy"] is a call for
the CBDTPA [Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act], then
it's not a war against piracy so much as a war against universal Turing
machines for all people for all purposes.  We've seen an insidious
escalation in this war, which the generals and profiteers cannot justify in
public.  Officially, it's a war against pirates of priced digital content,
but it harms authors and readers of free digital content.  We are the
civilians killed by indiscriminate raids, the collateral damage from stupid
bombs, the price worth paying to make the world safe for entertainment."

* FOSN for April 29, 2002

Excerpt:  "The Poincaré conjecture is unusual in several respects.  First,
it's on every shortlist of the most famous and difficult unsolved problems
in mathematics.  Second, the Clay Mathematics Institute has offered a $1
million prize for a proof of the conjecture.  Third, a serious assault on
the problem is now taking place in a free online preprint archive. Martin
Dunwoody, a mathematician at Southampton University, posted a tentative
proof of the conjecture to the Southampton Pure Mathematics Group Preprint
Archive.  Dunwoody has revised his text several times as readers found
flaws in his proof and as he found solutions.  When I last visited, he was
up to version 8, and wrestling with a difficulty pointed out by Warwick
mathematician Colin Rourke. Despite the setbacks and fixes, the evolving
proof is generating excitement.  Arthur Jaffe, president of the Clay
Institute, called Dunwoody's work "the first serious effort" on any of the
institute's seven prize-winning problems....From an [OA] point of view,
this is an experiment in putting unfinished work on an open-access preprint
server, updating the work in response to criticism, harnessing informal
peer review to improve a result before submitting it to formal peer review,
and letting the world watch every step free of charge. If Dunwoody never
quite fixes the leaks in his proof, he will still have proved the utility
of free online preprint archives in gathering relevant expertise and
focusing it on an important scientific problem.  If his proof succeeds,
then it will count not only as the world's first proof of the Poincaré
conjecture, but as an elegant new proof of the [OA] Quality Theorem, which
asserts that first-rate science and scholarship do not depend on the medium
(print or electronic) or cost (priced or free) of the channel of

* FOSN for May 6, 2002

Excerpt:  "Jupiter Media Metrix released a study showing that users of P2P
music swapping software are more likely to buy priced music than other
music fans....It's important to remember that P2P music swapping is not
closely related to [OA]....In short, open access to music is harder to
justify than open access to scholarship.  That's why it's significant when
empirical evidence shows that even musicians focused on the bottom line
profit more from allowing open access than from blocking it.  We've seen
open access provide a net boost to sales again and again for scholarly
books....The new Jupiter study shows it for music....It's also important to
remember that [OA] for peer-reviewed research articles, and their
preprints, is justified and economically sustainable even if open access
doesn't help the bottom line of profit-seeking artists and publishers.  But
if open access did help the bottom-line of commercial artists and
publishers, then scientists and scholars would no longer have to waste
energy arguing that their corner of the publishing industry is an exception
to the general rule.  They would no longer have to combat the myth that
preventing free copying is in the interest of all copyright holders.  If
every sector of the publishing industry benefited from open access, though
for different reasons (research impact v. profit), then all the sectors
could collaborate in establishing the benefits and removing the barriers to
open access."

* FOSN for May 15, 2002

Excerpt:  "Richard Stallman told me that he sees no good reason to use the
GPL or copyleft for scientific journal articles....GLP makes more sense for
software manuals or textbooks, where new developments create a need to
modify the original text.  But articles that report the result of an
experiment, or the observations of a scientist, should not be modified."

Excerpt:  " Progress in achieving FOS has been accelerating, especially in
the past two years.  But compared to the rate permitted by our
opportunities, progress has been slow.  All the means to this end are
within the control of scientists and scholars themselves and don't depend
on legislatures or markets.  We needn't wait for anyone to become
enlightened except ourselves.  So what is slowing us down? ...So if our
case is the easy case [compared to music, novels, patents], why is it so
hard? ...Here's a whack at an answer.  There is no single cause of
scholarly sluggishness on FOS, but here [eight] factors that certainly play
a role...."

* FOSN for May 23, 2002

Excerpt:  "If you want to deepen the discussion [of why OA progress has
been slow], focus on why self-archiving isn't spreading more rapidly than
it is.  Creating an archive is now painless with free software, maintaining
an archive takes minimal effort, hosting one takes server space that any
university could donate without noticing, and the benefits are immediate
and cumulative.  Moreover, there is a network effect.  One telephone is
useless, but every new telephone makes every existing telephone more
useful.  The situation is similar though not quite so stark with eprints
archives.  One eprints archive is useful for the authors who deposit their
papers in it and for the readers who happen to need access to those papers.
 But readers are much more likely to find what they need as more archives
join the network of distributed archives.  Cross-archive search engines
make it unnecessary for readers to know which archives exist, where they
are located, or what they contain.  Researchers using these search engines
will notice that they find what they are looking for more often as more
archives join the system.  As more readers and researchers find the body of
archived literature useful, more will turn to it in their research,
multiplying the benefits for authors as well.  Every new archive makes
every existing archive more useful.  That is one more reason for every
university and laboratory to start an archive, in case there weren't enough
reasons already.  Think of it like a matching grant.  If your employer
matches your charitable contributions, you have a rare chance to amplify
your donations.  In this case, the network effect matches your FOS
contribution.  When your institution participates in self-archiving, the
gain to all users is greater than the set of papers in your archive...."

Excerpt:  "BMC has launched the _Journal of Biology_, a new open-access
journal which it hopes will challenge _Nature_, _Science_, and _Cell_.
 JBiol will have a distinguished editorial board headed by Martin Raff,
whom ISI ranks as one of the 10 most cited scientists in the UK.  The board
will include three Nobel laureates, Harold Varmus, Michael Brown, and
Joseph Goldstein, and two former editors at _Nature_, Theodora Bloom and
Peter Newmark....There is no reason why the world's most eminent scientists
can't work for an open-access journal, although there is a suspicion that
this is somehow unnatural.  Nobody quite admits to holding the belief that
journal quality requires price barriers, or that filtering readers by
wealth helps a journal filter manuscripts by quality, but the belief has a
widespread underground existence just the same.  It's a holdover from the
days when the internet was dominated by hobbyists, and serious academics
looked smart for saying, "you get what you pay for".  Although the web has
moved on, and pockets of free content have long since proved their quality
and reliability, this long-refuted belief may still lurk in the
subconscious minds of people who are otherwise wide awake and informed.  It
may also arise from confusing two different gate-keeping functions, one to
block unworthy manuscripts from publication and one to block
non-subscribers from reading...."

Excerpt:  "In _The Future of Ideas_, Lawrence Lessig quotes the following
passage from Macchiavelli.  It goes a long way to [explain why OA progress
has been slow].  'Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under
the old regime, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who
would prosper under the new.  Their support is indifferent partly from fear
and partly because they are generally incredulous, never really trusting
new things unless they have tested them by experience.'  (From _The
Prince_, W. W. Norton, 1992, at p. 17.  Quoted by Lessig, Random House,
2001, at p. 6.)"

* FOSN for May 30, 2002

Excerpt:  "I've been on sabbatical for the 2001-02 academic year. Although
I launched the FOS Newsletter before my sabbatical began, it flourished
during my sabbatical because I was able to give it my full-time attention.
Now my sabbatical is coming to an end and I must ratchet down the
Newsletter in preparation for the 02-03 year, when I will be teaching
full-time.  I am slowing down and slimming down the Newsletter, but not
halting it....To take up some of the functions performed by the Newsletter,
I'm launching a blog to gather and disseminate FOS news...."

* FOSN for June 17, 2002

Excerpt:  "Ingenta is the world's largest web-based aggregator of priced
scientific journal literature....It is very successful at what it
does....Profit is compatible with open-access, as BioMed Central is
proving.  But Ingenta does not offer open-access....On April 5, Ingenta
named the U.S. contingent to its Advisory Board.  The new members are Mary
Case (Association of Research Libraries), Clifford Lynch (Coalition for
Networked Information), Andrew Odlyzko (University of Minnesota), Carol
Tenopir (University of Tennessee), and Mary Waltham (Nature).  What's
notable is that a clear majority of the new members are
[OA]-friendly....The puzzle is why Ingenta [which does not offer OA] would
name such an [OA]-friendly advisory board...."


Coming this quarter

Here are some important OA-related events coming up in the next three

* June 2012. The UK Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research
Findings (a.k.a. Finch Group) is expected to release its report on OA

* June 2012. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is expected
to release its report on the Research Excellence Framework and its OA

* June 2012. The tenth anniversary meeting of the Budapest Open Access
Initiative is expected to release its recommendations for the next ten
years. (The new BOAI statement will be another strong endorsement of libre
OA and would have included in this month's lead article.)

* Summer 2012. More details on the Horizon 2020 funding program and its OA

* OA-related conferences in June 2012

* OA-related conferences in July 2012

* OA-related conferences in August 2012

* Other OA-related conferences


This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821), written by Peter
Suber and published by SPARC.  The views I express in this newsletter are
my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC or other sponsors.

SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum

SPARC Open Access Newsletter, archived back issues

To subscribe or unsubscribe

Open Access Overview

Open Access Tracking Project

Open Access News blog (2002-2010)

Peter Suber
peter.suber a gmail.com

My other writings on OA

Harvard Open Access Project

Meet me on Google+

SOAN is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States
-------------- parte successiva --------------
Un allegato HTML è stato rimosso...
URL: <http://liste.cineca.it/pipermail/oa-italia/attachments/20120602/9219afb3/attachment.html>

Maggiori informazioni sulla lista OA-Italia