17.139 new on WWW: Open Access newsletter

From: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 05:48:49 EDT

  • Next message: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty

                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 17, No. 139.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                         Submit to: humanist@princeton.edu

             Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:29:06 +0100
             From: Peter Suber <peters@earlham.edu>
             Subject: SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 7/4/03

           Welcome to the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #63
           [Formerly called the Free Online Scholarship (FOS) Newsletter]

           July 4, 2003

    The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter has changed its name to the SPARC
    Open Access Newsletter. With this issue, it resumes regular publication.

    The new name reflects two welcome changes. First, "open access" is now
    widely accepted as the standard term for the barrier-free online
    availability of scientific and scholarly literature. My old term for this,
    "free online scholarship" or "FOS", is still widely recognized, but has
    been steadily eclipsed by "open access" since the launch of the Budapest
    Open Access Initiative in February 2002. I now use "open access" instead
    of "FOS" in my own writing and see it much more often in the writings of
    other researchers, journalists, editors, and publishers. I could continue
    to ride on the branding identity that "FOS" has built up, but I decided
    that it was time to use the same term that I was encouraging others to
    use. (For the same reason, I've changed the name of the FOS News blog to
    Open Access News.)

    The second welcome change is that SPARC is now publishing the
    newsletter. SPARC's support has enabled me to leave full-time teaching for
    full-time research and writing on behalf of open access. I'm very grateful.

    On a more technical front, SPARC's excellent listserv software (CommuniGate
    Pro) means that I'm no longer looking for a new host for the newsletter or
    forum. No more advertising in newsletter issues. No more intrusive
    questions during sign-up. No more issues blocked by spam filters, I hope.

    The newsletter was weekly during the 01-02 academic year, and will now be
    monthly. Formerly, my writing time was supported by a sabbatical from
    Earlham College and a grant from the Open Society Institute (OSI). Now,
    the newsletter will be directly supported by SPARC and the rest of my
    writing time will be supported by OSI and Public Knowledge. I hope to say
    more on my open-access work for OSI and PK work in a future issue.

    I mention my relationships to SPARC, OSI, and PK partly because they
    explain my new freedom to write, and partly because I'll inevitably write
    about them as important players in the open-access movement. I see no
    conflict of interest, but I do want to make a full disclosure. I see no
    conflict because these three organizations support true open access, as I
    do. They are supporting me because of our convergent interests and
    positions, not in order to steer me in a new direction.

    When I write about SPARC, OSI, and PK in the future, I'll remind readers of
    my connection to them. But I don't plan to bend over backwards to avoid
    covering them when they make news or to disguise what I think of them. I
    trust you to see whether I start exaggerating or waffling --and to let me know.

    One more point that doesn't go without saying: the views I express in the
    newsletter are my own and not necessarily SPARC's. I'm pleased to say that
    this disclaimer is as important to SPARC as it is to me. I feel free to
    say what I wish, and I feel supported in this freedom.


    Some housekeeping details about the changes

    * The last issue of FOSN came out on September 15, 2002. That's a while
    back, in internet time, so you might have forgotten that you
    subscribed. You did. Instead of inviting all of you to join the revived
    newsletter, I simply transferred your subscriptions. This is the same
    publication to which you subscribed; it simply has a new name and
    publisher. But if you want out, it's easy to unsubscribe. (Info below.)

    * To emphasize that SOAN continues FOSN, I've started numbering the
    issues. This is issue #63.

    * The FOS Forum is moving to SPARC too, and undergoing an analogous name
    change. It will be called the SPARC Open Access Forum (SOAF). All
    subscribers to the FOS Forum are automatically subscribed to SOAF. Like
    the FOS Forum, SOAF is unmoderated. Like the FOS Forum, subscriptions to
    it are separate from newsletter subscriptions, in order to give readers a
    choice about how much email to receive. Starting today, the FOS Forum is
    closed to further postings, although its archive of past postings will
    remain online.

    * I thank Dru Mogge of ARL for helping to set up the CommuniGate Pro lists
    for both the newsletter and forum.

    * I launched the FOS News blog (now called the Open Access News blog)
    during the 02-03 school year. It was a way to gather and disseminate news
    about the FOS movement that took less time than writing a newsletter. I
    count it a big success. It lets me offer other contributors' voices, other
    methods of dissemination (including RSS), and daily updates. While the
    blog started as a newsletter substitute, it will now be a newsletter
    supplement. The two vehicles serve different purposes and I'll keep them
    both. In fact, each issue of the newsletter will have a section of news
    highlights and new publications since the previous issue, borrowing largely
    from the blog.

    Open Access News blog

    * While the newsletter was dormant, during the past academic year, I
    launched a page of information on conferences and workshops related to the
    open-access movement. Formerly, I put a couple of months' worth of
    conference info at the end of each issue of the newsletter. The web page
    is so much easier for users than the newsletter list that I'm keeping it too.

    Conferences related to the open-access movement

    * If you use a challenge-response (CR) system to block spam, then please
    add this newsletter to your whitelist. If you don't, I'll receive a
    challenge every time I send you an issue, requiring me to validate my
    mailing. I will not have time to respond to challenges and you'll never
    get your issues.

    Currently the forum is unmoderated, but I may have to moderate it to
    prevent spam blockers from broadcasting challenges to all members. Again,
    the better and simpler solution is for subscribers to add the forum to
    their whitelists. (More on this in the second story below.)

    * Finally, here's how to subscribe and unsubscribe and a few other details.

    SPARC Open Access Newsletter (SOAN)
    --to subscribe, send any message to <SPARC-OANews-feed@arl.org>
    --to unsubscribe, send any message to <SPARC-OANews-off@arl.org>
    --to read and search back issues, go to

    SPARC Open Access Forum (SOAF)
    --to subscribe, send any message to <SPARC-OAForum-feed@arl.org>
    --to unsubscribe, send any message to <SPARC-OAForum-off@arl.org>
    --to post, send your message to <SPARC-OAForum@arl.org> (subscribers only)
    --to read and search SOAF postings, go to
    --to read and search postings to the FOS Forum (SOAF's predecessor), go to

    Newsletter & Forum home page at SPARC
    (subscription, posting, archiving info for both the newsletter and forum)

    Newsletter & Forum home page at my personal site
    (same info and more, including the newsletter editorial position)

    Open Access Project at Public Knowledge
    (the other job in my post-teaching career)

    * Please help the cause by updating your bookmarks and spreading the
    word. Many thanks.


    Martin Sabo's Public Access to Science Act

    On June 26, Rep. Martin Sabo, a Minnesota Democrat with 25 years in the
    House, formally introduced H.R. 2613, the Public Access to Science Act (PASA).

    PASA is the boldest and most direct legislative proposal ever submitted on
    behalf of open access. US Copyright law already holds that "government
    works" are not subject to copyright. PASA extends this exemption to works
    that are "substantially funded" by the federal government. The preamble to
    the bill estimates that the federal government spends $45 billion a year on
    scientific and medical research. If all works "substantially" based on
    this funding were in the public domain, taxpayers would get a significantly
    higher return on their investment in research. These works might be
    published in conventional, priced journals, but anyone who wanted to extend
    their reach and impact beyond the small set of paying subscribers would be
    free to do so. All this literature would suddenly be much more useful.

    Sabo aides have told the press that the word "substantially" was not
    defined in the bill so that the many federal agencies that fund research
    could define it in their own ways. Hence, one agency could say that any
    publication based 25% or more on its grant must be in the public domain,
    while other agencies could set the threshold at 50% or 75%.

    While PASA would be a giant step forward for open access, it may be bigger
    than necessary --for open access and for the political realities of
    Congress. For example, open access to research articles does not require
    open access to all the products of federally funded research, like software
    and new physical materials. Moreover, open access to research articles
    does not require that the articles be in the public domain. It only
    requires that there be no copyright or licensing restrictions (statutory or
    contractual barriers) preventing open access. Putting works into the
    public domain is a simple and effective way to remove these barriers. But
    consent of the copyright holder is equally effective.

    The Creative Commons has many good examples of licenses that authorize open
    access and yet stop short of transferring works into the public
    domain. Since there is no need to jettison copyright in order to achieve
    open access, there is no reason to lose the votes of those members of
    Congress who would be unwilling to jettison copyright. Copyright also
    gives authors the legal basis to block the distribution of mangled or
    misattributed copies of their work, although in the real academic world
    authors rarely need copyright to preserve the integrity of their work.

    The policy argument for exempting government-funded research articles from
    copyright is essentially identical to the argument, already embodied in the
    statute, for exempting government works from copyright. But if the current
    copyright climate makes Congress more likely to rethink this fundamental
    policy than to extend it, then PASA could broaden its appeal by allowing
    federally funded works to be copyrighted, provided the copyright holder
    consented to open access. The result for open access would be the same,
    and the move would disarm a host of objections. Copyright holder consent
    could be manifest by submitting the work to an open-access journal or
    depositing it an open-access archive.

    Obtaining copyright holder consent for open access is difficult or hopeless
    for works that generate revenue. But scientific research articles earn no
    royalties for their authors and never have. Scientists are rewarded by
    making advances to knowledge, and to their careers, and would gladly
    consent to open access in exchange for research funding. Even in the
    absence of research funding, more and more scientists consent to open
    access as the best path to a larger audience and increased impact.

    Sabo's office has made clear that PASA is a conversation starter. In the
    spirit of advancing the conversation, let me suggest a few revisions that
    would enhance its political chances and at the same time improve its
    effectiveness in providing open access to taxpayer-funded research.

    (1) Recognize that copyright-plus-consent works as well as the public
    domain in creating the legal conditions for open access. If broadening the
    political support for the bill turns out to be necessary, then this is an
    easy way to do it that doesn't compromise the bill's commitment to open access.

    (2) Limit the scope of PASA to peer-reviewed research articles and their
    preprints. This will prevent colliding with Bayh-Dole on software,
    machines, materials, processes, and other patentable discoveries. We
    should avoid these collisions not because Bayh-Dole is wise legislation,
    but simply in order to keep separable issues separate. This limitation
    would keep unrelated controversies from slowing progress on open access to
    research articles.

    (3) Putting works into the public domain and obtaining copyright holder
    consent to open access are not themselves open access. They are merely two
    ways to clear the legal path to open access. PASA could go further and
    require actual open access. It could require funded researchers to submit
    their work to open-access journals or deposit it in open-access
    archives. OA journals are growing in number and prestige, and OA archives
    make open access compatible with publication in a conventional
    journal. This would take us all the way to the goal, not just to one of
    its important preconditions.

    (4) Finally, PASA could require federal research grants to cover the
    processing fees charged by open-access journals --that is, could treat
    open-access publication as a cost of research. This would not only help
    assure open access to articles arising from funded research, but answer the
    complaints of journals that they cannot justify the expense of refereeing
    and publishing a paper without a revenue stream or an upfront fee to take
    its place.

    The first two suggestions are aimed at helping the bill gather support in
    Congress and with the many stakeholders in scholarly communication. The
    last two are aimed at taking the bill further in promoting open access;
    they could be incorporated into PASA now or wait for supplemental
    legislation at a later time.

    Text of the bill

    Summary, status, and co-sponsors of the bill

    Press release from the Public Library of Science first announcing the bill

    News coverage

    * PS. Section 105 of the Copyright Act says that "Copyright protection
    under this title is not available for any work of the United States
    Government...." It does not explicitly extend this exemption to
    government-funded works, which creates the need for a bill like
    PASA. However, it has been an open question whether Section 105 could be
    extended to government-funded works without an explicit amendment.

    Here's a passage from the legislative history of Section 105:

    >A more difficult and far-reaching problem is whether the definition [of a
    >"government work"] should be broadened to prohibit copyright in works
    >prepared under U.S. Government contract or grant. As the bill is written,
    >the Government agency concerned could determine in each case whether to
    >allow an independent contractor or grantee, to secure copyright in works
    >prepared in whole or in part with the use of Government funds. The
    >argument that has been made against allowing copyright in this situation
    >is that the public should not be required to pay a "double subsidy," and
    >that it is inconsistent to prohibit copyright in works by Government
    >employees while permitting private copyrights in a growing body of works
    >created by persons who are paid with Government funds. Those arguing in
    >favor of potential copyright protection have stressed the importance of
    >copyright as an incentive to creation and dissemination in this situation,
    >and the basically different policy considerations, applicable to works
    >written by Government employees and those applicable to works prepared by
    >private organizations with the use of Federal funds.
    >The bill deliberately avoids making any sort of outright, unqualified
    >prohibition against copyright in works prepared under Government contract
    >or grant....

    What's interesting is that Section 105 has always been open to the reading
    that PASA makes explicit. PASA would settle a previously unsettled point
    of law, or close the open texture of a deliberately flexible statute, not
    reverse the effect of a clear rule.

    Moreover, in Section 105 Congress acknowledged the important policy
    argument that Sabo cites on behalf of PASA. Those who say that PASA is
    contrary to US law and policy need to reread the legislative history.

    Legislative history of Section 105 of the Copyright Act (U.S. Code, Title 17)


    Saving the oodlehood and shebangity of the internet

    The internet makes open access possible. Open access wasn't physically or
    economically possible in the age of print. These commonplace assertions
    are true but slightly out of focus. Let's be more specific. The internet
    has many properties (it's digital, it's packet-switched, it has end-to-end
    architecture, it has a certain number of nodes, a certain throughput
    capacity, a certain level of traffic at a given time, a certain degree of
    saturation, and so on), but one property above all others makes open access
    possible. It's the capacity to disseminate perfect copies of a digital
    file to a worldwide audience at virtually no cost.

    Now that this property is in focus, notice that it's the very same property
    that makes spam and large-scale digital piracy or mass infringement
    possible. I wish this property had a name. That would do a lot to advance
    the discussion of open access, spam, and mass infringement. In the absence
    of an accepted name for it, and for lack of a better term (like oodlehood?
    shebangity?) let me call it the "prodigality" of the internet.

    Open access proponents like to focus on the revolutionary potential of the
    prodigality of the internet for the public good. But our strategic
    thinking must address the fact that the same prodigality also has
    revolutionary potential for mass infringement, economic harm, loss of
    privacy, and spam hell. The forces at work to curb these harms are
    powerful and well-funded --and not especially cautious about the goods they
    destroy in order the crush the evils they fear. It's time to realize that
    the obstacles to open access don't lie merely in the inertia and ignorance
    of scholars, and the dysfunction of the journal market, but include a
    coordinated campaign to limit the prodigality of the net itself. We could
    be collateral damage in the war against piracy and spam.

    I've written often in the past about how the reaction to mass infringement
    has given up on surgical responses to online crime and turned to crude
    remedies that threaten the prodigality of the internet. For example, we
    see this in the denial of the first-sale doctrine to digital content, in
    retroactive extensions of copyright, in the hardware mutilations
    contemplated by Hollings' SSSCA, and in the DMCA ban on circumvention even
    for fair use or other non-infringing purposes. New question: will the
    reaction to spam be equally harmful?

    It may be. Many spam filters block mass mailings, whether or not they are
    spam. Or, they create a presumption that every mass mailing is spam, and
    put the responsibility on senders and receivers to rebut the
    presumption. This harms newsletters, discussion forums, and the
    open-access current-awareness services of free and priced journals.

    Many spam filters are too crude to distinguish opt-in services from others,
    and many that make this distinction are hard to awaken to the fact that a
    wrongly blocked list is really opt-in. Even mailings that are not blocked
    because they are addressed to multiple recipients may be blocked because of
    their content. Vanilla discussions of breast cancer, safe sex, pedophile
    priests, and national security legislation might trigger a
    filter. Forthright discussions of sex and political opposition are at even
    higher risk. The problem is aggravated when spam filters use secret
    criteria, and aggravated further when they are imposed by schools,
    employers, ISP's, or governments without user knowledge or consent.

    New challenge-response systems for blocking spam may be even more harmful
    to open-access mailings. Instead of blocking requested content, so that
    recipients never see it, they confront the sender with a challenge that
    takes human labor to satisfy. (This is the point; if the validating
    responses could be automated, spammers would automate them.) Senders of
    newsletters and other email-borne forms of open-access content will be
    showered with challenges and never have time to answer them. Either that,
    or answering them will create a new cost of doing business that threatens
    the open-access business model. This problem can be averted if users of
    challenge-response spam blockers put their subscription newsletters and
    journals on their whitelists. But it's probably easier to design a perfect
    spam filter --impossible to date-- than to educate all their users.

    Other spam remedies, like Sen. Charles Schumer's Stop Pornography and
    Abusive Marketing (SPAM) Act, could ban anonymous remailers, which are
    essential to the free circulation of ideas in repressive parts of the world.

    If my keyboard had a key that sent a non-fatal electric shock to the sender
    of a piece of spam, then I confess: mine would be worn out. I'm ominously
    attracted to a direct, Skinnerian remedy that combines text and
    voltage. ("Thanks for the spam. Here are 100 volts just for
    you.") People who hate copyright infringement hate it even more than I
    hate spam. On June 19, Senator Orrin Hatch said in public what many no
    doubt think in private, that the music industry needs a method to destroy
    the computers of copyright infringers. If executives at the RIAA and MPAA
    had remote detonation keys on their keyboards, they would be worn out.

    You may not hate mass infringement, but you probably hate spam, and that's
    enough to put you on both sides of this problem. The prodigality of the
    net carries the potential for momentous good and the potential for
    momentous harm. Those who fight the harm have a bad track record at
    limiting themselves to the harm, and a proven tendency to fight the
    prodigality of the net itself even at the cost of momentous good.

    Watch the campaign against spam and mass infringement. You don't have to
    love either one to love the prodigality of the internet that makes them
    possible. Fight to defend it and to prevent remedial overreaching. Don't
    hastily blame only the defenders of indefensible intellectual property
    theories. All of us who hate spam are now implicated. So while watching
    others, who might encroach on the prodigality that makes open access
    possible, we should also watch ourselves. Can we hate spam surgically?

    Finally, let's watch for escalations of mischief and harm that create
    excuses to sacrifice the good potential of the net in order to block the
    bad. Will the dream of open access live only as long as the internet's
    prodigality is endurable, and die when terrorist viruses (let's call them
    Hatchlings) can be delivered to every desktop?

    On the threat from challenge-response spam systems

    Sen. Charles Schumer's Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing (SPAM) Act

    Orrin Hatch's remote detonation fantasy

    * PS. In light of this, it's especially depressing (1) that the Supreme
    Court just upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), requiring
    federally funded libraries to use internet filters, and (2) that Ben
    Edelman and the ACLU lost their suit for permission to circumvent copy
    protection in order to learn the blacklist of N2H2, a commercially
    available internet filter. There will now be more filtering than ever,
    according to secret criteria, against the will of users, blocking much of
    what the Supreme Court concedes is constitutionally protected speech.

    On the upholding of CIPA

    On the Edelman-ACLU defeat


    News highlights and bibliography since June 1, 2003

    In future issues of SOAN, I'll recap the important news stories, and list
    the important publications, appearing since the previous issue. I'll take
    most of these from the Open Access News blog, which I write with other
    contributors and update daily. I'll give both the item URL and blog entry
    URL so that you can read the original story as well as what I or another
    blog contributor had to say about it. I'll omit items covered elsewhere in
    the newsletter.



    * Lawrence Lessig and Lauren Gelman have created an online petition in
    support of the Public Domain Enhancement Act. Add your signature today.

    Also see this Lessig interview about the petition.

    Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) officially
    introduced the Public Domain Enhancement Act on June 25.

    * The ACRL made webcasts of the sessions of its National Conference
    (Charlotte, April 10-12) and is charging $25-160 for access to them. Even
    ACRL members must pay for access.

    * The Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine at the University of Natal is
    using a grant from Pfizer Pharmaceuticals to build a new, open-access
    HIV/Aids Information Gateway.

    * The National Library of Medicine announced a freely available standard
    content model for the electronic archiving and publishing of journal articles.

    News coverage

    * Derk Haank said again that he supports journal access that is "free at
    the point of use". He means that when universities buy subscriptions,
    their faculty needn't pay again.

    He also resigned as CEO of Reed Elsevier's science and medical division,
    effective immediately, to become the CEO of Springer in early 2004.

    * There are two more open-source packages for building OAI-compliant eprint
    repositories: Rapid Visual OAI Tool (RVOT), from the Old Dominion
    University Digital Library Group, and DLESE from the Digital Library for
    Earth System Education group



    The other three open-source packages for building OAI-compliant archives
    are Eprints (Southampton), DSpace (MIT), and CDSWare (CERN).

    * On his last day in office as Director of the OMB, Mitch Daniels gave up
    on his attempt to let federal agencies outsource their printing jobs and
    bypass the Government Printing Office (GPO) and its open-access policies.

    Also see Miriam Drake's review of the controversy.

    * This fall the University of California will launch open-access journals
    using the tools and framework of its eScholarship Repository.

    * JISC has bought institutional memberships in BioMed Central (BMC) for all
    180 universities in the UK, a major national initiative for open access and
    endorsement of the BMC business model.

    News coverage

    * The Bethesda statement on open access publishing was released on June
    20. An breakthrough endorsement of open access by a group of foundations,
    scientists, editors, publishers, and open-access proponents. Common ground
    and momentum are spreading.

    * The first impact factors were reported for open-access journals published
    by BioMed Central.

    * Presses Universitaires de France wants to block Canadian Jean-Michel
    Tremblay from posting works to his web site that are in the public domain
    under Canadian law but still copyrighted under French law.

    * Steve Hitchcock's Core metalist of open access eprint archives has moved,
    reorganized, and changed its name to Explore Open Archives. It's now
    maintained by the OpCit Project.

    * The Supreme Court has refused to hear SBCCI's appeal from the Fifth
    Circuit decision letting Veeck post a copyrighted statute (yes, a
    copyrighted statute) to his web site.$rec=104449?news


    New bibliography

    * Alison Buckholtz, Raf Dekeyser, Melissa Hagemann, Thomas Krichel, and
    Herbert Van de Sompel, "Open Access: Restoring scientific communication to
    its rightful owners", European Science Foundation

    * A section of Walt Crawford's July _Cites & Insights_ is devoted to
    open-access journals.

    * The Council of Europe has issued a "Declaration on Freedom of
    Communication on the Internet"

    * Elizabeth Gadd, Charles Oppenheim, and Steve Probets, three articles:

    "How academics expect to use open-access research papers"

    "How academics want to protect their open-access research papers"

    "The impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving"

    * Stevan Harnad, "Why I Believe That All UK Research Output Should Be
    Online," _The Times Higher Education Supplement_, June 6, 2003.

    * Elspeth Hyams, "Scholarly publishing on the road to Damascus", _Library
    Information Update_, July 2003.

    * LibLicense has a good discussion thread on library cataloguing of
    open-access journals.

    * Farhad Manjoo, "The free research movement", _Salon_, July 1, 2003.

    * David Messerschmitt, "Research library responses to the NSF
    cyber-infrastructure program", a powerpoint presentation.

    * OECD Follow-up Group on Issues of Access to Publicly Funded Research
    Data, "Promoting Access to Public Research Data for Scientific, Economic,
    and Social Development". From the OECD.

    * Some items by and about the Public Library of Science:

    Annalee Newitz, "TECHSPLOITATION: Science for Everybody," _AlterNet_, June
    16, 2003.

    Christoph Droesser interviewed Harold Varmus in _Die Zeit_, June 18, 2003.
    http://www.zeit.de/2003/26/N-Interview-Varmus (in German)

    (Google's English)

    PLoS produced a TV spot to introduce the concept of open access to the
    general public.

    * Michelle Romero, "Open Access and the Case for Public Good: The
    Scientists' Perspective", _Online_, July/August 2003.

    * Thomas Susman and David Carter, "Publisher Mergers: A Consumer-Based
    Approach to Antitrust Analysis", white paper from the Information Access

    * John Willinsky, "Scholarly Associations and the Economic Viability of
    Open Access Publishing", _Journal of Digital Information_, 4, 2 (April 2003).

    * The presentations from the recent conference, Electronic Theses and
    Dissertations Worldwide (Berlin, May 21-24), are now online.

    * Some of the presentations from the workshop, Peer Review in the Age of
    Open Archives (Trieste, May 23-24), are now online.

    * Vol. 4, issue no. 2 of the _Journal of Digital Information_ is devoted to
    the economics of digital libraries.


    This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (SOAN), written by Peter Suber and
    published by SPARC. The views I express in this newsletter are my own and
    do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC.

    Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested
    colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, see the
    instructions for subscribing at either of the first two sites below.

    SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum

    Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter
    editorial position

    Newsletter, archived back issues

    Forum, archived postings

    Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement

    Guide to the Open Access Movement

    Timeline of the Open Access Movement

    Sources for the newsletter and blog

    Open Access News blog

    Peter Suber

    SOAN is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. To view a
    copy of this license, visit
    or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford,
    California 94305, USA.


    This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
       The SPARC Open Access Newsletter.
    To unsubscribe, email to <SPARC-OANews-off@arl.org>.
    Send administrative queries to <SPARC-OANews-request@arl.org>.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 05:51:06 EDT