The 1994 "subversive proposal" link is actually this. The self-archiving FAQ came a few years later and has been continuously updated ever since.

The slavery analogy is rather too severe. So are the analogies with the pharmaceutical, oil and tobacco industry that have been used now and then. The industrial lobbying and FUD against OA has been shrill and shifty, but not quite sinister or inhumane. Mostly, it has been transparently hyperbolic, ineffectual, and even pathetic, and prominently exposed as such. After all, the publisher lobbying and FUD have all failed, resoundingly (and over 60% of journals have gone Green -- and 15% of them Gold -- of their own accord).

And let's not forget that there were other culpable parties in the far too slow transition to the optimal and inevitable, most prominent among them being the researchers themselves, the very ones who create this peculiar author give-away literature, written only for research impact rather than royalty income. Historians will have to note that in the end it required mandates from their institutions and funders to induce researchers at long last to do what was fully within their reach all along, and in their own best interests, as well as in those of their institutions, their funders, the vast R&D industry, and the tax-paying public that supports their research...