[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Wellcome Trust report

My point was that learned societies partner with all sorts of suppliers
when they self-publish and these suppliers (such as printers) are usually
commercial. There is to my mind no difference in kind for a learned
society to partner with a publisher, as long as they hold on to their
ownership and certain decisions, than it is for them to partner with a
printer or with an online host. Readers of this list may recall that one
SPARC initiative was to built up non-commercial suppliers but I do not
think this has been one of the more successful initiatives of SPARC. I
forget whether or not SPARC supported FIGARO (see google) but that


----- Original Message -----
From: "jcg" <jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>; "Anthony Watkinson"
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Wellcome Trust report


> How learned societies fit into this whole scheme is indeed a complicated
> question and part of the dilemma is that learned societies have grown used
> to financing many worthwhile activities. and some not so worthwhile, on
> the back of their journals. While this is true, it must also be remembered
> that the situation would be a lot simpler if we had to deal only with
> learned societies: their values, at least, converge to a large extent with
> the aggregate values of their respective constituencies. That is not true
> of large, commercial, publishers.
> Jean-Claude Gu�don
> On Sat June 5 2004 12:23 am, Anthony Watkinson wrote:
> > These societies represent their communities. Professor Guedon does not.
> > How far does his objection to capitalism carry? Should learned societies
> > have contracts with suppliers of print or should they bring all
> > functions in house? I suppose there must be not-for-profit printers 
> > but I do not know any.