Re: OA and copyright -- Andy Gass quote in LJ News Wire

["Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <chief-exec@alpsp.org>]

I think there's a division of opinion between those who think that 'pure'
OA should, indeed, mean that the item is free of all restrictions on
reuse, and those who think it should more simply mean 'free for everyone
to access without restriction' (but not necessarily to reuse - e.g. for
commercial purposes!).  As you might expect, ALPSP prefers the broader
definition (and its variations - delayed OA, partial OA etc) since we
believe that the overall cost of processing OA articles needs to be
recovered from as many sources as possible, not necessarily just from
authors (or their proxies - institutions, funders)

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
E-mail:  chief-exec@alpsp.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:09 AM
Subject: OA and copyright -- Andy Gass quote in LJ News Wire

> I was reading the LJ Academic Op-Ed Wi... oops, I mean the LJ Academic
> News Wire this morning, and noticed this from a report on an OA debate
> that took place at ALA last month:
>
> "Andy Gass of PLoS responded, 'Genuine open
> access articles are those whose prospective digital use is
> unlimited,' noting, for example, that those writing for
> such journals 'have no interest in suing copy shops.'"
>
> Now, I may not be accurately comprehending Andy Gass's meaning here, but
> it sounds to me like he's saying that for an article to be genuinely
> Open Access, it shouldn't be subject to copyright.  (I can't think of
> any other way to interpret the phrase "prospective digital use is
> unlimited.")
>
> So my questions are two:
>
> 1.  Is this really what he meant to say?
> 2.  If so, is his view generally held by OA advocates?
>
> Rick Anderson
> rickand@unr.edu