Well, anything that requires continual capital resources and staff time,
requires continual funding or donations/volunteers of some kind, right?
If you want to be reasonably confident it will still be there in X
years, you need to be reasonably confident that your combination of
funding and/or donations (of capital, hardware and network etc) and
volunteers (staff) continues.
Sustainable really does mean something important economic here, it's not
a word reserved only for spotted owls.
Umich found it's own stewardship of OAISter unsustainable. We all know
what OCLC's approach to sustainability is. If someone else has another
one, it would be great if you'd try it out. While OCLC got the name
recognition of OAISter, they didn't get any special rights to harvest
the data, you can do it too.
Thomas Krichel wrote:
> Tim Spalding writes
>
>
>> There should be a ban on the word "sustainability" to mean "give me
>> your money." It's grating to hear the language of redwoods and great
>> spotted owls to justify another monopolistic expansion.
>>
>
> Moral indignation only gets you so far. We have to press the BUSINESS
> case for open free libraries. I have said it (almost) six years ago:
>
> http://openlib.org/home/krichel/presentations/new_york_2003-11-07.ppt
>
> see slides 1 to 11, and slide 32 to 43
>
> I said it last year:
>
> http://openlib.org/home/krichel/papers/kuyus.html
>
> I said it last week on liblicense-l:
>
> http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0909/msg00050.html
>
> see 4th paragraph.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
> RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
> skype: thomaskrichel
>
>
Received on Tue Sep 22 2009 - 14:36:03 EDT