I sometimes feel like I'm the only person in the world who defines 'open access' as non-commercial access. I honestly don't get how people think charging for a resource somehow makes it 'more free', and I'm pretty sure there's a sizeable foundation-type lobby making sure that the 'open-as-commercial' perspective holds sway. Well, I haven't drunk the commercialism Kool-Aid, and consequently, I reject the proposal coming forth from the so-called 'LOD-LAM Summit' to create a 4-star definition of openness. If you can block access to something and demand payment for it, it's not open. It is certainly not 'more open' than the non-commercial form of openness that most people actually want to use. Give the types of licensing names, not rankings. Anyhow, for the rest of the world who disagrees with me, here's the draft version of the four-star system, above is a video of MacKenzie Smith of MIT and Creative Commons discussing the system, and the LOD-LAM Blog.
Today: 4 Total: 4 [Direct link] [Share]
