It's not that simple. Where I live and work the implementation of these policies is actually quite horrible. We're supposed to put everything in open access repositories under a creative commons license and at the same time are supposed to publish in top journals if we want to have any career prospects. But almost no reputable journal of any rank and name allows this dual licensing - not Springer, De Gryuter, Oxford Journals, which alone make up > 90% of all journals in my area, and many journals demand the author to sign a copyright transfer agreement or equally strong publishing contracts.
When we pointed out this conflict to superiors, top science administration officials and university directors and asked about legal support, the idea was that we get no legal support whatsoever! If we breach a publisher's contract because we're forced to by the government, we're on our own. And it doesn't stop there. Assessment of tenure track positions is done by committees that are not staffed with science administration people but with independent peer reviewers, of course, so the procedures cannot really be changed. But if they could be changed somehow, e.g. by forcing these panels to disregard closed access publications, we'd get a whole generation of complete crackpot professors and the level of science would go down the gutter nationwide, because there are simply not enough reputable open access journals. Anybody can upload something in an open access repository, whereas the top journals I'm talking about have acceptance rates below 5%.
So for us currently the choice is between ignoring the open access policies and getting into trouble with the local science administration folks, or giving up our careers and any prospects to ever get a fixed position, and most people chose the former for obvious reasons.
When we pointed out this conflict to superiors, top science administration officials and university directors and asked about legal support, the idea was that we get no legal support whatsoever! If we breach a publisher's contract because we're forced to by the government, we're on our own. And it doesn't stop there. Assessment of tenure track positions is done by committees that are not staffed with science administration people but with independent peer reviewers, of course, so the procedures cannot really be changed. But if they could be changed somehow, e.g. by forcing these panels to disregard closed access publications, we'd get a whole generation of complete crackpot professors and the level of science would go down the gutter nationwide, because there are simply not enough reputable open access journals. Anybody can upload something in an open access repository, whereas the top journals I'm talking about have acceptance rates below 5%.
So for us currently the choice is between ignoring the open access policies and getting into trouble with the local science administration folks, or giving up our careers and any prospects to ever get a fixed position, and most people chose the former for obvious reasons.