[Humanist] 26.911 open access
Humanist Discussion Group
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Tue Mar 26 07:20:46 CET 2013
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 911.
Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:31:58 +0000
From: "James O'Sullivan" <josullivan.c at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 26.909 open access
In-Reply-To: <20130325062744.926962DA2 at digitalhumanities.org>
I don't think it's quite accurate to say that most academics have released
something as open access -- I think of numerous tools, major and minor,
that might well be free, but aren't open source.
The scale of that which is being licensed is also of importance, I think.
Licensing one's blog or Flickr account under CC licenses is indeed
important (and something I've done myself), but there is a significant
difference between licensing blog posts and photos and licensing a major
scholarly project. Again, the more effort people put in, the less eager I
see them being when it comes to releasing work as open source.
I think we need to clarify what we mean by "open access". When I say that a
significant number of academics aren't releasing things as open access, I
don't simply mean "freely". To my mind, open access means truly open in the
open source sense of the word. In other words, the data / results aren't
simply released, the source code (in the case of software) and all of the
constituent elements of a piece of scholarship are made available. For
example, many people use the No-Derivs aspect of the CC on their
blogs/Flickr. That's not open - it's just free.
This issue applies very much to software development, I think. Make a list
of all the scholarly tools that you use -- how many of them are open? ie.
How many of them have their source code readily available on the Web? A
great many of them are indeed open - but a significant portion are not.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 909.
> Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
> Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:17:01 +0000
> From: John Levin <john at anterotesis.com>
> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 26.903 open access
> In-Reply-To: <20130323073910.3A8E32DD9 at digitalhumanities.org>
> On 23/03/2013 07:39, Humanist Discussion Group wrote:
> > Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 903.
> > Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
> > www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
> > Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> > Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:50:45 +0000
> > From: "James O'Sullivan" <josullivan.c at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: 26.899 open access?
> > In-Reply-To: <20130322061922.817272CCB at digitalhumanities.org>
> I'd like to pick up on the first point:
> > 1. Many people who champion open access have not actually had something
> > release as open access. It's all well and good to state that you would
> > your intellectual property open access, but when a scholarly pursuit /
> > project / development does come to fruition, many people, unfortunately,
> > change their mind on open access when faced with the actual products of
> > their labours. Excuse the poor analogy, but it reminds me of Lord of the
> > Rings. After the arduous journey, lots of people do eventually conclude:
> > "It's mine, why shouldn't I hold onto it?"
> I disagree with this in four ways.
> Firstly, I can't think of any champion, academic or otherwise, of open
> access that doesn't have something to release on such terms, or hasn't
> done so already.
> Secondly, open licenses are fairly often chosen by people with something
> to release: Flikr is a fine example of this on a grand scale, not least
> because they make it quite easy to chose creative commons licenses. For
> academia, my impression (not done a survey, nor know of one) is that CC
> licenses are very popular for individual academics' blogs.
> Thirdly, and again Flickr is a good example, people often have something
> to release. That's not just testimony to the way digital photography has
> taken off; it's also about how people think about what they are
> producing and how they want to share. A photo on flickr becomes part of
> something larger. My photos of plaques are of little interest alone, but
> in the context of openplaques.org they become more useful, gain context,
> In the academic context, I feel that many academics aren't aware of what
> they have produced, and the value of it and its re-use: think course
> bibliographies, or data sets, not just finished articles and perfected
> books. This is all useful material were it shared. In the case of data,
> I think it essential that it be freely released, for otherwise how can
> we check the work based upon it?
> Finally, the question "It's mine, why shouldn't I hold onto it?" applies
> even more to those publishing with journals that demand copyright being
> alienated without payment as a condition of publication.
> John Levin
> List posts to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> List info and archives at at: http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist
> Listmember interface at:
> Subscribe at:
*James O'Sullivan *
@jamescosullivan http://twitter.com/jamescosullivan **
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jamescosullivan http://twitter.com/#%21/jamescosullivan
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/jameschristopherosullivan http://www.linkedin.com/in/jameschristopherosullivan
Facebook: http://facebook.com/jameschristopherosullivan http://www.facebook.com/jameschristopherosullivan
New Binary Press: http://newbinarypress.com/Bookstore.html
Submit to *The Weary Blues*: http://thewearyblues.org/submit.html
More information about the Humanist