Liblicense, OA, and Scholarly Communication: overlapping purposes

[Michael Leach <leach@eps.harvard.edu>]

Dear Colleagues,

The recent discussion of the purpose of liblicense-l in relation to Open
Access (OA) is an important one.  In many ways, I agree with Margaret
Landesman, as with others who have already posted.  I, myself, originally
signed onto this list to learn, share, etc. regarding license issues of
electronic resources.  This list still meets those expectations.

The OA threads/discussions, though (for the most part), enhance that
original purpose, in my opinion.  For instance, as a professional
librarian I see the need to engage in communication with publishers,
authors, and others to understand and in some small way direct (nay, may I
say influence) the broader area of scholarly communication (SC).  OA is
one new model of SC, and depending on the publishing model attached to it,
could have an impact with practical, liblicense-like issues.

For instance, as a pragmatist, I do not foresee OA replacing the
toll-access/subscription model any time soon.  Rather, I see a period of
mixed publishing models, each reflecting a myriad of experiments and
trials in SC.  One current example of this mixed publishing is the
membership subscriptions for BioMed Central and PLoS.  These membership
subscriptions have issues very similar to the toll-access e-resource
processes that liblicense was set up to support.  But there are also new
issues related to these memberships.  Liblicense, to me, is a great
opportunity to meld the original e-resource issues with the newer issues
arising from OA.

Similarly, this list (as pointed out earlier) is a great medium for
publishers, vendors, and librarians to discuss, collaborate, and share
information related to electronic resources in general, regardless of the
publishing model.  Areas of mutual interest include pricing, access,
statistics, etc.--all issues that this list has covered in the past, and,
interestingly enough, are associated with the OA model.

So, in summary, let's keep on asking practical questions and raising
important issues related to the core purposes of liblicense, but let's
also engage in the broader discussion and debate about scholarly
communication that provides the reason for liblicense to exist.

Sincerely,

Michael


Michael R. Leach

Harvard University Physics Research Library & Kummel Library of Geological 
Sciences
17 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138  U.S.A.
1-617-495-2878 [Physics] or -2029 [Kummel] (voice)
1-617-495-0416 or -4711 (fax)
leach@eps.harvard.edu or mrleach@fas.harvard.edu