Open Access (Teil 1)

["Klaus Graf" <klaus.graf _at__ geschichte.uni-freiburg.de>]

Alle, die am Fortschritt der Open Acess Bewegung fuer freie
zugaengliche wissenschaftliche Fachliteratur interessiert
sind, koennen nunmehr (wieder) einen (nunmehr monatlichen)
Newsletter von Peter Suber abonnieren. Hier werden die
wichtigsten Meldungen des Suberschen Weblogs nochmals
referiert. Ich gebe einige Auszuege, um ein Bild von der
exzellenten Qualitaet dieses Neuigkeitendienstes zu
vermitteln, und kommentiere kurz die allgemeinen
Ueberlegungen ueber Open Access. Im Zweifelsfall sollte
aber immer der vollstaendige Text des Newsletters unter
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OANews/Message/96.html
konsultiert werden.

Klaus Graf

***

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:18:12 -0400
 Peter Suber <peters _at__ earlham.edu> wrote:
>Welcome to the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue
> #64
> [Formerly called the Free Online Scholarship (FOS)
> Newsletter]
> 
> August 4, 2003
> 
> 
> How should we define "open access"?
> 
> (1) The most important element by far is that open-access
> literature is available online free of charge. This is
> the element that catalyzed the open-access movement, and
> the element that defined "free online scholarship". To
> this day, it's the only element mentioned when
> journalists don't have space for a full story.

Es gibt kein schlagwortartiges deutsches Aequivalent zu
"Open Access". Die deutsche Uebersetzung des BOAI-Aufrufs
behaelt open access als zentrale englischsprachige
Bezeichnung bei und gibt folgende Definition:

"Open access meint, dass diese Literatur
                   kostenfrei und öffentlich im Internet
zugänglich sein sollte, so dass Interessierte
                   die Volltexte lesen, herunterladen,
kopieren, verteilen, drucken, in ihnen suchen,
                   auf sie verweisen und sie auch sonst auf
jede denkbare legale Weise benutzen
                   können, ohne finanzielle, gesetzliche
oder technische Barrieren jenseits von
                   denen, die mit dem Internet-Zugang
selbst verbunden sind."

Quelle:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/g/read.shtml


> 
> (2) But price isn't the only barrier to access. Price
> barriers obstruct the free flow of information, and make
> it less useful, but so do a dizzying array of licensing
> restrictions that I have called "permission barriers".
> Most scientific research is still published behind both
> price and permission barriers. Open-access archives and
> journals bypass them both.
> 
> There are two classic ways to eliminate permission
> barriers: to put the work in the public domain and to
> obtain the copyright holder's consent for all the
> relevant scholarly uses --such as unrestricted reading,
> downloading, copying, sharing, storing, printing,
> searching, linking, and crawling.
> 
> Permission barriers are more difficult to discuss than
> price barriers. First, there are many kinds of them,
> some arising from statute (copyright law), some from
> contracts (licenses), and some from hardware and software
> (DRM). They are not like prices, which differ only in
> magnitude. Second, their details are harder to discover
> and understand. Third, different users in different
> times, places, institutions, and situations can face very
> different permission barriers. Fourth, authors who
> deposit their articles in open-access archives bypass
> permission barriers even if they also publish the same
> articles in conventional journals protected by copyright,
> licenses, and DRM. Finally, some rights may be retained
> by authors without interfering with open access, such as
> the right to block distribution of a mangled or
> misattributed copy of the work. So permission barriers
> do not arise from retaining rights as such but only from
> retaining some rights rather than others. For all these
> reasons, the literature on open access is rarely as clear
> and careful on permission barriers as it is on price
> barriers. All definitions of open access say something
> about bypassing or removing permission barriers, although
> they use very different language. Journalists who cover
> open-access issues would do us all a favor if they could
> describe permission barriers, and the damage they cause,
> with roughly the same clarity, detail, and fervor they
> use when describing price barriers.
> 
> My February 2003 article introducing the term "permission
> barriers" and giving many specific examples
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/acrl.htm

Dieser Artikel Subers richtet sich vor allem an
Bibliothekare.

"price barriers" sind Preisbarrieren, was sind "permission
barriers"? Vielleicht sollte man von Lizenzbeschraenkungen
oder Lizenzbarrieren sprechen und von der Forderung nach
Lizenzfreiheit. 

Meistens liegen Lizenzbeschraenkungen und Preisbarrieren
gemeinsam vor: die meist auf das Urheberrecht (Coypright)
gestuetzten Lizenzbeschraenkungen sollen verhindern, dass
die Preisbarrieren umgangen werden.

Kommt es vor, dass Lizenzbeschraenkungen auf kostenfrei
zugaengliche Literatur Anwendung finden?

Mir kommt dabei vor allem eine Formulierung in den Sinn,
die auf Internetseiten immer wieder begegnet: der
Ausschluss jeglicher gewerblicher Nutzung.

Ich erinnere dazu auch an die hier in INETBIB vor wenigen
Tagen gefuehrte Diskussion ueber die Praxis der obersten
deutschen Gerichte, ihre Urteile ins Internet einzustellen,
aber jegliche gewerbliche Nutzung auszuschliessen.

Nun bin ich alles andere als ein Freund kommerzieller
Forschungen, aber die zunehmende Stigmatisierung der im
Rahmen von Firmen betriebenen Forschungen ist mir ein Dorn
im Auge. Die Forschungsfreiheit des Art. 5 GG gilt nicht
nur fuer non-profit-Unternehmen. Insofern finde ich es auch
bedenklich, wenn beispielsweise in § 87c UrhG der zu
gewerblichen Zwecken erfolgende wissenschaftliche Gebrauch
hinsichtlich der Vervielfaeltigung eines nach Art und
Umfangs wesentlichen Teils einer Datenbank nicht erlaubt
wird.

Wenn Hochschulschriftenserver jegliche kommerzielle
Benutzung (also auch den einfachen Download) der
eingestellten Arbeiten verbieten, so sehe ich darin einen
Verstoss gegen die Forderung nach lizenzfreiem Zugang, d.h.
einem solchen ohne Lizenzbeschraenkungen.

"Alle angebotenen Inhalte dienen ausschließlich
                     der wissenschaftlichen und
persönlichen Information. Eine kommerzielle Nutzung der
                     Inhalte des Freiburger
Dokumentenservers ist nicht gestattet."

So Freidok der Uni Freiburg:
http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/freidok/doku/urheberrecht.html

Was ist mit der gewerblichen Zwecken dienenden Forschung?

Es wird ausdruecklich von Freidok darauf hingewiesen, dass
Kopien nur zum privaten Gebrauch zulaessig sind.
(Uebersehen wird die Privilegierung des wissenschaftlichen
Gebrauchs.)

Eine freie Weitergabe des Textes im wissenschaftlichen
Kontext, wie sie das Kriterium der Lizenzfreiheit ("all the
 relevant scholarly uses --such as unrestricted reading,
 downloading, copying, sharing, storing, printing,
 searching, linking, and crawling") postuliert, ist mit
dieser strikten Betonung des Urheberrechts nicht moeglich.

Meine These zur Lizenzfreiheit lautet also: Kostenfreie
Internetangebote, die kommerzielle Forschungsunternehmungen
von ihren Segnungen
ausschliessen und auf dem traditionellen restriktiven
Urheberrecht auch im rein wissenschaftlichen Kontext
bestehen, sind keine Open-Acess-Angebote im Sinne der Open
Access-Bewegung.

> 
> (3) The major open-access initiatives differ on whether
> open access includes measures to assure long-term
> preservation. For example, the definitions used by BMC
> and the Bethesda statement include this element, but the
> BOAI and PLoS definitions do not.
> 
> Taking steps to preserve open-access literature directly
> answers an objection often raised against open access.
> This makes it both desirable and important for
> open-access initiatives to take steps to preserve their
> literature and to say so prominently. The need for
> prominent mention often brings the mention right into the
> definition of "open access". But none of this means that
> preservation is part of open access, merely that it is
> desirable. Is preservation an essential part of openness
> or a separate essential?
> 
> On the one hand, the importance of preservation doesn't
> make it part of openness any more than the importance of
> clarity and truth make them part of openness. The major
> initiatives agree on the importance of providing peer
> review and high standards of quality, but they also agree
> that this doesn't make quality part of openness.
> 
> On the other hand, preservation might be part of the
> definition even for those who want to keep the emphasis
> on what it takes to achieve openness or to remove access
> barriers. Preserving literature for the long term is
> part of enhancing its accessibility. Technological
> obsolescence and file corruption are access barriers that
> preservation programs are designed to remove.
> 
> My preference is to make preservation a separate
> desideratum. Openness is the name of one good thing and
> there are many good things. We don't lose our motivation
> to pursue them all by admitting that they are distinct.
> But by bundling them all under the concept of openness,
> we risk blurring or over-burdening our simple concept and
> we risk delaying progress by multiplying the conditions
> that our initiatives must meet. Let's pursue openness
> and preservation in parallel but not as if they were
> inseparable.

Hier moechte ich Suber ausdruecklich wiedersprechen. Die
langfristige Verfuegbarkeit ist ein "essential" sowohl fuer
konventionelle als auch fuer E-Publikationen. Sicherung der
langfristigen Verfuegbarkeit ist daher fuer mich ein
Kernpunkt, wenn es darum geht, fuer den Open Access zu
werben. Nur wenn man sich zentral zu diesem Punkt bekennt,
ist es moeglich, den Skeptikern wirksam entgegenzutreten.

> 
> (4) Similarly, the major definitions differ on whether
> depositing a work in an open-access archive or repository
> is part of the definition. Again, the BMC and Bethesda
> definitions require deposit and the BOAI definition does
> not. The earliest PLoS definition required deposit but
> its current definition does not.
> 
> I think the same initiatives that require preservation
> also require deposit because, in essence, they conceive
> deposit as one way to enhance preservation. Archivists
> are more likely to take pains to assure the preservation
> of archives than authors or institutions are likely to
> preserve personal home pages. Moreover, archives are
> independent of journals and likely to survive as journals
> change hands, change policies, and change fortunes.
> Indeed, BMC insists on deposit in PubMed Central in part
> to reassure its authors and readers that its articles
> will outlive BMC if need be.
> 
> But open access through an archive is unnecessary for
> works that have open access through a journal. In that
> sense, the deposit requirement is not essential for open
> access as such, even if it enhances the value of
> deposited works.
> 
> Let's make sure that all research articles and their
> preprints are deposited in open-access archives or
> repositories, regardless of their fate in journals. But
> let's understand that we should do this because it's an
> effective means to the end, not because it defines the
> end.
> 
> (5) The newer definitions recognize one further element:
> an explicit and conspicuous label that an open-access
> work is open access. Readers should be told when a work
> is free of price and permission barriers. They might be
> reading a copy forwarded from a friend and not know
> whether the publisher would like to charge for access.
> They might want to forward a copy to a friend and not
> know whether this kind of redistribution is permitted.
> When an article has no label, then conscientious users
> will seek permission for any copying that exceeds fair
> use. But this kind of delay and detour, with non-use as
> the consequence of a non-answer, are just the kinds of
> obstacles that open access seeks to eliminate. A good
> label will save users time and grief, prevent
> conscientious users from erring on the side of non-use,
> and eliminate a frustration that might nudge
> conscientious users into becoming less conscientious.
> 
> The Creative Commons is an excellent leader on this
> point. Not only does it provide text and graphic labels
> for online literature, but it supports links from those
> labels to clear explanations of the rights waived and the
> rights retained by the author. Moreover, it provides
> both a lay explanation and a bullet-proof lawyer's
> explanation. Finally, it provides a machine-readable
> version of the license. In principle, this will allow a
> search engine to give you a list of works that not only
> match your query, but that you know you can use in
> certain ways without further permission from the
> rightsholder. I don't believe that any search engines
> yet take advantage of this feature, but I'd like to be
> corrected.
> 
> I confess that it took me a long time to realize the
> importance of good labels. All my scholarly writings
> (except one book) are openly accessible on my web site.
> But none of them says so. Each has a copyright
> statement at the bottom, which links to a page explaining
> that I waive most of my rights and consent to what is now
> called open access. But this liberating authorization is
> one click away from the text itself, one ergonomic hurdle
> too far. I haven't had time to go back and add explicit
> labels or CC licenses to each work, although this is a
> task on my priority list for when I do have time. If I
> were doing it all over again, I'd use CC licenses from
> the start, or supplement my copyright statement in the
> text with language like this: "This is an open-access
> publication. Some rights reserved." Then I'd link to a
> second page with more detail.
> 
> The BMC definition requires an explicit label, at least
> for copies or excerpts distributed outside BMC channels.
> The Bethesda definition requires an explicit label, at
> least on versions deposited in an archive. The original
> PLoS definition did not require labels, but its current
> practice is simply to require a CC Attribution license,
> which includes the very useful human- and
> machine-readable label.
> 
> The presence of a work in an archive or journal known to
> provide open access is an implicit solution nearly
> equivalent to a label. The BOAI FAQ relies on this
> solution. Metatags or metadata offer another kind of
> implicit solution. These are very desirable, but not
> sufficient, since conscientious users will still err on
> the side of non-use in the absence of explicit
> permission.
> 
> Creative Commons
> http://www.creativecommons.org/
> 
> My copyright page
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/copyrite.htm
> 
> BOAI FAQ on the implicit label arising from inclusion in
> an OA archive or journal
>
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#consentqueries
> 
> * There are other, lesser elements on which the
> definitions diverge. For example, the BMC definition is
> the only one that specifies a standardized format,
> preferably XML, for open-access works. The Bethesda
> definition is the only one to include an explicit right
> to make and distribute derivative works. At the same
> time it's the only one to limit authors to "the right to
> make small numbers of printed copies for their personal
> use".
> 
> All the definitions are meant to apply to peer-reviewed
> research articles and their preprints. The BOAI public
> statement argues that these works form the core of the
> special body of literature that authors give to the world
> without expectation of payment. The ARL's definition of
> "open access" picks up on this and becomes the only
> definition to specify the body of literature to which the
> definition applies.
> 
> ARL definition (last revised July 24, 2003; original date
> unclear)
>
http://www.arl.org/scomm/open_access/framing.html#openaccess
> 
> * How important is uniformity about the definition?

[ganz gestrichen]

> * The four major definitions in alphabetical order:
> 
> Bethesda definition, June 20, 2003
>
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition
> 
> BioMed Central (BMC) definition (from its Open Acces
> Charter), originally July 1, 2002
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/charter
> 
> Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition,
> February 14, 2002
>
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#defopenaccess
> 
> The Public Library of Science (PLoS) definition itself
> comes in different flavors. I can date the PLoS itself
> but not these different definitions:
> --The definition on its page on open access is identical
> to the BOAI definition. Yet on the same page PLoS links
> to the Bethesda statement.
> http://www.plos.org/about/openaccess.html
> --The definition in its FAQ refers readers to the PLoS
> license...
> http://www.plos.org/faq.html#openaccess
> --and the PLoS license is now identical to the Creative
> Commons Attribution License.
> http://www.plos.org/journals/license.html
> 
> * Postscript. The value of open access lies primarily in
> widening access. But despite that, it doesn't create
> universal access. Even after we've removed price and
> permission barriers, there will be several barriers left
> to overcome before we reach truly universal access. Here
> are four:
> 
> (1) Handicap access barriers: most web sites are not yet
> as accessible to handicapped users as they could be.
> 
> (2) Language barriers: most online literature is in
> English, or just one language, and machine translation is
> very weak.
> 
> (3) Filtering and censorship barriers: more and more
> schools, employers, and governments want to limit what
> you can see.
> 
> (4) Connectivity barriers: the digital divide keeps
> billions of people, including millions of serious
> scholars, offline.
> 
> We should definitely work to remove these four additional
> barriers. But we shouldn't hold off using the term "open
> access" until we've succeeded. Removing price and
> permission barriers is a significant plateau worth
> recognizing with a special name.
> 
> ----------