I was just about to start some hacking, but I’ve just got a comment from Stevan that needs reply. [This blog is not the best medium to carry out this discussion but it seems to be providing something useful.] Parts of the comment are excised in this post
PMR: I think a major confusion has come from the term “Permission-Barrier-Free”. I read this to mean “Free of all permissions” whereas the Suber-Harnad terminology is for “Free from at least one permission-barrier”
And the logical algorithm continues to be that Price-Barrier-Free OA is a necessary condition for Permission-Barrier-Free OA and Permission-Barrier-Free OA is a sufficient condition for Price-Barrier-Free OA, which technically and logically makes the one “Weak OA” and the other “Strong OA”.
However, two problems remain: “Weak” has unintended pejorative connotations, so it cannot be used as the generic name for Price-Barrier-Free OA.
PMR: As I understand it weakOA is a uniform object which is price-free but has not other advantages. Words such as minimal or basic would be descriptive
And Permission-Barrier-Free OA is a matter of degree (whereas Price-Barrier-Free OA is all-or-none).
So in order to avoid vagueness, a further criterion is needed in order to define Permission-Barrier-Free OA precisely: A minimum or lower bound has to be specified (in the hierarchy of possible CC licenses) for Permission-Barrier-Free OA.
PMR: Much OA does not use licences at all. If all OA can be specified by licences that would be a vast improvement
(In addition, and optionally, an optimum CC license can be designated, either in general, or for certain fields or uses.)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with either “grand visions” or rhetoric. It is all about functionality, logic and practicality.
If you don’t mind my saying so, Peter, you have a specific need for a specific kind of Permission-Barrier-Free OA. You seem to want to define OA, or Strong OA, or Permission-Barrier-Free OA as what meets that specific need.
PMR: No. I read “Permission-Barrier-Free OA” as meaning “free of all permission-barriers”. If it doesn’t it is highly misleading.
In the wider context of OA, your specific need falls within a spectrum of needs, all of which are supported by the architects and advocates of OA. But your specific needs cannot be made the basis of the definition of OA, and not even of the definition of Permission-Barrier-Free OA. There is no point calling this simple logical, functional and practical fact a preference for grand visions of rhetoric, because it is not.
PMR: My specific need is for clarity, not for a special type of OA.
In addition, it may well be that your own specific needs have no use for the Green/Gold distinction — which is not about how OA is defined, but about how OA is delivered (via OA self-archiving of articles in non-OA journals or via publishing in OA journals). But the reason you keep finding the color distinction confusing (despite having it repeatedly explained, and despite the fact that it was formulated to resolve confusion) may again be that you are focussed only on your own specific OA needs and not on the OA needs of others, and on the confusion that needs to be resolved in order to meet them.
OA is being defined and provided in order to fulfill a broad spectrum of needs, primary among them being free online access to articles that would otherwise be inaccessible to users. In addition, there is a broad spectrum of permissions and corresponding licenses that can remove a broad spectrum of permission barriers to a broad spectrum of possible usage and re-usage needs. Apart from a specific CC license, there is no natural kind in all of this that corresponds only to the kinds of usage needs you have in mind.
This is not a logical, practical or functional defect in the concept, the nature or the definition of OA.
PMR: My perspective is as a user/reader, agreed. So how the document got to be OA is less important to me personally that what the final situation is. “Green” and “gold” represent processes, and the processes per se do not define the final outcome. So “self-archiving” does not indicate what the user may or may not do. That matters to me.
Note also that the word in general will take its definition of OA either from BBB or Wikipedia which states:
Open access (OA) is free, immediate, permanent, full-text, online access, for any user, web-wide, to digital scientific and scholarly material, primarily research articles published in peer-reviewed journals. OA means that any user, anywhere, who has access to the Internet, may link, read, download, store, print-off, use, and data-mine the digital content of that article. An OA article usually has limited copyright and licensing restrictions.
the spectrum covered by weakOA and much OA does not accord with BBB or WP. You are therefore redefining the use of the term itself. This may be a good thing, but it certain to cause much confusion and I am acting as a touchstone for that.