I bet, in practice, this will mean some researchers will avoid public funds as it will come with overhead they do not want (publishing rules). But for most this will be a big win.
First of all: Researchers won't avoid public funds, because there's never enough money.
Second of all: Most researchers HATE academic publishers and being forced to sign over their copyright to a paywall in exchange for nothing. But institutional evaluation criteria force you to do so.
EU banning non-open publications will force publishers to allow open access OR force universities to revise their criteria to accommodate the inability to publish publicly funded work in non-open journals.
I think all of my colleagues think this is a great thing. As do I. Elsevier can go blow a goat with their copyright assignment BS.
I'm into the history of logic at the moment. As in not the filtered oh-so-neat version that is presented at third-level but the nitty-gritty twists and turns from Ancient Greece (go team Aristotle!), Indian, Arabic, Scholastic, Medieval, Pre-modern, the rise of symbolic/algebraic logic, Kant/Hegel/Trendelenburg, on to Frege and then the multiplication of logics (modal/tense/deontic, …) in the 20th century ending with type theory.
Recently Elsevier contracted top logicians to produce a Handbook in the History of Logic. It runs to 11 volumes, each volume north of $300. So folks, if you want to get acquainted with the complete history of what is supposed to be a formalisation of rational thought it can be yours for $3,300 or thereabouts. There is no reason this should not be in the public domain, it's too fundamental and central to history of ideas. I could buy two cheap second-hand cars for that price. (Personally I have used SciHub to have a look and I don't mind saying so.)
Now I would like to think that top logicians are not complicit in this scam, but I fear they are. I have a burning desire to crowd-source a website that provides the same information. >95% of the papers/texts are out of copyright. These academics already have very lucrative salaries and grants. I don't think we can point the finger exclusively at the Elseviers of this world, they have had a little bit of help along the way. Here in HN we have a bit of an open-access echo chamber. Some academics are very happy with the status quo, and who wouldn't be with those prices? I think it's _insane_.
I'll post names and links of the details if people are interested.
Unless you're leaving out important details, that strikes me as a completely reasonable and uncontroversial thing for Elsevier to do. If they're going privately fund the creation of an original specialist work, I think they can charge whatever they want for it. That's worlds away from how they they've subverted the primary scientific publishing process for private profit.
What if though, they actually get their money from private funding, like a ton of research projects do. You cast this of as a thing even weird to even consider, but this just implies you don't seem to have found yourself in academia ever (or if so, without any actual colleagues).
I certainly agree that no researcher would prefer a non-open journal vs an open journal, but if the former means a stand-still of their career and the latter means an advancement, then the latter is far more valuable for them.
You'd be surprised how few those are. Even in the biggest private/public companies there are tons of research and tech subsidies, tax-cut deals and other schemes involved which end up in tons of government (our) cash. Those pay for lots of things, including part of their R&D.
But if said open access occurs by mandate, and doesn't cost my lab money...why not?
1. For the work I do, what "The data" is often somewhat ambiguous, and depending on how you define it, falls anywhere from "That's not mine to give" to "This is useless for what you actually want, but obeying the letter of the law".
2. It makes work with minority communities harder - they have a very, very poor history with "Consent to this, and researchers will do whatever they please with your information without consultation."
3. Sometimes privacy issues come up as well with medical data.
4. I think it gives us a false sense of security. "I re-ran their code with their data and got the same answer" is markedly inferior to "I attempted to replicate their study in a different population", but we often do the first and then pat ourselves on the back about it.