There are some who argue that if it's valuable to others, then others 
should pay for it (even when the improved access benefits your 
institution first and foremost, and distribution of the improvements is 
an arguably beneficial side effect) .  Why should one institution carry 
the financial burden of improving something that benefits others beyond 
that institution?  It's not an argument I agree with, but it's one I've 
heard before.


Luciano Ramalho wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:24 AM, graham<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>    
>> 2. It is hard to justify spending time on improving access to free stuff
>> when the end result would be good for everyone, not just the institution
>> doing the work (unless it can be kept in a consortium and outside-world
>> access limited)
>>      
>
> Why is it hard to justify anything that would be good for everyone?
>
>
>