Re: Open Access & Conservation Commons

[guedon <jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca>]

This is an amazing statement. Open access supporters are fully aware of
the complexity of the publishing field and know that some forms of
scientific publishing cannot be released in the same manner as others. The
example of free software displays the same kind of flexible and varied
response. Trying to assign a rigid, monolithic approach to open access
supporters can only mean one thing: a desire to polemicize - a point which
appears very clearly in Peter Banks' last sentence. Even a single approach
to open access licences would benefit some, for example Third World
scientists.

Jean-Claude Guédon

Le vendredi 04 mars 2005 à 23:26 -0500, Peter Banks a écrit :

> I fully appreciate that Creative Commons offers a variety of licenses,
> tailored to the different needs and circumstances of an author and
> publisher. That is a positive development. I should have been clearer
> when I wrote initially to indicate that I meant Creative Common License
> as it is understood under the Bethesda Statement and the Berlin
> Declaration, as well as by PLoS. I do not think you can honestly argue
> that any of these statements or their adherents are advocating "a
> variety of licenses." They advocate one, and one only, which I continue
> to believe is in virtually no one's interest.
> 
> Peter Banks
> Publisher
> American Diabetes Association
> Email: pbanks@diabetes.org