Open means Libre

In recent posts (e.g. Open Data – preservation) I have continued to raise the problem that “Open” should not just mean free of charge nbut also free to use. (Peter Suber calls these price and permission barriers).   So I am glad to see Jo Walsh making the point very strongly (Keeping “Open” Libre) and showing that much of the problem is because the English language cannot easily make the distinction.
We are no in great danger that the same thing is happening to the word “Open”. Strict BBB language requires “Open Access” to remove permission barriers, but as Peter Suber says (“regrettably”) it is starting to become used for all sorts of lesser approaches which reduce the permissions.
This is serious enough for Open Access where people spend huge amounts of energy and stress worrying about what they can and cannot do with published material. It’s even more of a problem for “Open Data” which is only just starting its career.
We are still seeing very little evidence that people in the scholarly publishing community care about keeping data libre. Please prove me wrong anf I can include it in my article.

This entry was posted in data, open issues. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *