Free Access or Open Access?

Have you paid any attention to the whole free software/open source software community over the years?

There has been a lot of talk over the years about how "free" and "zero cost" don't mean the same thing. Well, "zero cost" is one definition of free, but it's not the full definition.

In the open source software community, these are often shorthanded as "free as in speech" and "free as in beer."

Free Software as defined by the FSF (and similarly Open Source Software as defined by the OSI) is not necessarily zero cost. However, it is "libre" free, in that there are broad permissions on reuse and redistribution of the software. This is "free" similar to the use of the word in "free speech."

"Free beer" is zero cost beer. (Although I think I did once see a "free as in speech beer", which was a freely redistributable recipe for brewing beer.)

It's so sad that the two meanings are caught up in the same word, because they mean very different things. And, alas, in the consumerist culture of the USA, "zero cost" is the first thing, and too often the only thing, people think of when they hear the word "free."

-Rob

Rob, I'm not sure this situation is directly comparable. The situation here as I understand it is one of zero cost, with extremely restrictive conditions on reuse and redistribution. It doesn't meet the definition of an open access publication as I, and I suspect most librarians, would apply it.

I think it's both comparable and not. It's comparable in that there is a confusion about the word "free," which has at least two different meanings in both cases. It is different in that the right to modify is much more important for the Free Software movement than for Open Access in publishing, although the latter retains that right, too. It's most important elements, IMO, are that it is permissionless, the author retains rights and barriers to access are extremely low. I agree with coturnix and others that the CMAJ claim is misleading and in my view possibly dishonest.