On 29 Jun 2006 Rick Anderson wrote on SERIALST:

> In case anyone cares, Stevan and I had a private exchange that clarified
> this.  In that communication, I asked Stevan whether it was fair to say
> that he thinks "that when a publisher offers Open Choice, that's okay --
> but when a group of publishers, acting as a lobby, promotes Open Choice
> as a formal alternative to self-archiving mandates, then that's a
> problem."  He said yes.  I maintain that that's different from what he's
> been saying in the public forum, but whatever.  (He did invite me to
> share the clarification on-list.)

Here is the pertinent passage from what I actually posted to SERIALST
http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0606&L=serialst&D=1&T=0&O=A&P=16171
"Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandate":

>  "From publishers who do not oppose the self-archiving mandates, Open
>  Choice is fine: it is an indication of good faith, and willingness
>  to test the waters of Open Access Publishing. But from publishers
>  lobbying against the adoption of self-archiving mandates, and touting
>  Open Choice as an alternative -- or, worse, pressing for the mandating
>  of paid-OA rather than self-archiving -- it is a clever, but somewhat
>  cynical way of delaying still longer the immediate mandating of OA,
>  as now proposed all over the world."

(Please do let me know whether anyone can detect a difference between what I
I posted and what Rick Anderson maintains is different from his summary above.)

Stevan Harnad