I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER advocates who publish works on the topic of OER under a ND license.
Over the last year I have received two invitations to publish research articles/chapters in special editions dealing with the topic of OER. My standard question is what license will you publish your special edition under? Typically the license does not meet the requirements of the free cultural works definition and then I humbly decline to publish under their restrictive licensing regimes. That's freedom of choice.
I'll leave the NC restriction aside here as there is divided opinion on this and my personal views are well documented in this forum. However, I just don't get the ND restriction applied to research output focused on promoting OER. Lets take an absurd example -- What if one of these publications cites work from WikiEducator which is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Sure, under fair usage/fair dealing a publication could lock down a CC-BY-SA citation under ND.
But where is the ethic? The ethic of research is to acknowledge your sources --- does this ethic extend to respecting the intentions of the original creator? If an author releases content under a copyleft / sharealike requirement - is there an ethical obligation to ensure that the "derivative" work is released under the same licence. Hypothetically, if an OER work is published under a CC-BY-NC-ND license and uses extensive material from a CC-BY-SA source -- would this be a transgression of research ethic? Similarly the ethic of research is to acknowledge your sources. At conceptual level the majority of research are derivative works based on the ideas of those who have gone before us. Given this ethic -- I don't see the rationale behind the ND restriction.
In the case of a cultural work, for example a digital painting -- I understand the ethic of applying a ND restriction because the digital artwork is the expression of the artist and the prime purpose of the creation.
>From a sociological perspective -- I don't think licenses should be used
to regulate intent, but that's another discussion.
Those of us working on the OER arena have lots to think about. After all, the purpose of education is to share knowledge freely.
> I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER advocates > who publish works on the topic of OER under a ND license.
I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with Scribd. That would explain the ND - they don't want a (more usable) HTML version out there diluting the marketing impact.
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 20:30 -0300, Stephen Downes wrote: > I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with Scribd. > That would explain the ND - they don't want a (more usable) HTML > version out there diluting the marketing impact.
If I was a betting man -- you'd have my bet :-). Wonder what the statistical probability would be on making money from this wager :-)
Hmm, its a big problem my end, because if and when some of my colleagues see the use of this and other restrictive licenses, all they see is that its Creative Commons and think that equates to OER... I am sensing a rise in the use of restrictions as the 2nd wave of OER comes on board without fully considering it
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> wrote: > Wayne wrote:
> Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
> I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER advocates who > publish works on the topic of OER under a ND license.
> I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with Scribd. That > would explain the ND - they don't want a (more usable) HTML version out > there diluting the marketing impact.
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:34 +1200, Leigh Blackall wrote: > Hmm, its a big problem my end, because if and when some of my > colleagues see the use of this and other restrictive licenses, all > they see is that its Creative Commons and think that equates to OER... > I am sensing a rise in the use of restrictions as the 2nd wave of OER > comes on board without fully considering it
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> > wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> > Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
> > I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER > > advocates who publish works on the topic of OER under a ND > > license.
> I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with > Scribd. That would explain the ND - they don't want a (more > usable) HTML version out there diluting the marketing impact.
Globally this is OK. On a local scale this isn't so easy. To my mind - the free cultural works definition needs work. It needs to be more morally neutral. It *could* be an important defining document, but as it is, I feel I can't subscribe due to some of the moral tones in it. It may have changed some since our big copyright debates from 2007.. so perhaps I should check..
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Wayne <wmackint...@col.org> wrote: > Hi Leigh,
> That's a real challenge -- but surmountable through good education and > advice to help folk take an informed decision.
> By setting a leading example and remaining true to our values -- we'll win > many over to our side :-).
> Cheers > Wayne
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:34 +1200, Leigh Blackall wrote:
> Hmm, its a big problem my end, because if and when some of my colleagues > see the use of this and other restrictive licenses, all they see is that its > Creative Commons and think that equates to OER... I am sensing a rise in the > use of restrictions as the 2nd wave of OER comes on board without fully > considering it
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> > wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
> I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER advocates who > publish works on the topic of OER under a ND license.
> I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with Scribd. That > would explain the ND - they don't want a (more usable) HTML version out > there diluting the marketing impact.
From your perspective -- what are the moral tones which are problematic? I would like to get a better understanding of the issues you face on the ground.
The Free cultural works definition was developed in an attempt to define a free cultural work.
Lessig's book on Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity was a seminal publication in the free knowledge movement. Yet the book fell short of defining the a free cultural work.
The free cultural works definition was an attempt to define this -- very similar to the Open Source Software definition. Software is different from content. There are are other definitional projects like the Open Knowledge Definition, see:http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0/ -- which in all material respects also protect the the essential freedoms, as in the case of the free cultural works definition.
is also based on the essential freedom -- so we're in good company.
There are subtle differences, for example concerning the requirement of attribution. This is also a complex debate ;-).
The free cultural works definition has been adopted by major OER iniatives. It has been adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation -- by far the worlds largest OER project.
Creative Commons distinguishes between free cultural works approved licenses and those which don't meet the requirements of the free cultural works definition,
See for example the "Free cultural works approved" logo on this CC-BY license:
The WikiEducator policy on community governance clearly articulates its commitment to the free cultural works definition and carries the free cultural works definition logo on the site.
I'm not sure whether its possible to achieve a "value-neutral" interpretation of freedom because freedom is a value, hence the need to define clearly what different projects mean by freedom at a practical level.
Look forward to reading your concerns regarding "moral tones"
-----Original Message-----
From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 5:13 PM
To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
Globally this is OK. On a local scale this isn't so easy.
To my mind - the free cultural works definition needs work. It needs to be
more morally neutral. It *could* be an important defining document, but as
it is, I feel I can't subscribe due to some of the moral tones in it. It may
have changed some since our big copyright debates from 2007.. so perhaps I
should check..
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Wayne <wmackint...@col.org> wrote:
> Hi Leigh,
> That's a real challenge -- but surmountable through good education and
> advice to help folk take an informed decision.
> By setting a leading example and remaining true to our values -- we'll win
> many over to our side :-).
> Cheers
> Wayne
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:34 +1200, Leigh Blackall wrote:
> Hmm, its a big problem my end, because if and when some of my colleagues
> see the use of this and other restrictive licenses, all they see is that its
> Creative Commons and think that equates to OER... I am sensing a rise in the
> use of restrictions as the 2nd wave of OER comes on board without fully
> considering it
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca>
> wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
> I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER advocates who
> publish works on the topic of OER under a ND license.
> I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with Scribd. That
> would explain the ND - they don't want a (more usable) HTML version out
> there diluting the marketing impact.
*In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed
> by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like > creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can > be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does > not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the > business model of the most powerful publishing companies. *
Basically, I don't even think the definition needs that whole ranting paragraph and would be much better without it. We need to do more to generously acknowledge the beliefs of everyday people who rely on perhaps a misunderstanding of the protections in All Rights Reserved. We want to come across as a rational option right? If this document is to be a defining document, sloppy words like "suppressed by the laws", "god like status", "monopoly", "impedes the flourishing of culture", "does not even help the economic situation", and "most powerful publishing companies" are not referenced and morally and politically loaded. This paragraph should be deleted and if there is a need to cover the things it attempts to cover, it should do more to exhibit a generous and sympathetic understanding for people who believe in All Rights Reserved so as to not put them off side with what can easily be seen as lefty ranting. Removing the moral tones and ranty unreferenced statements would help.
Shall I delete the paragraph?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org>wrote:
> From your perspective -- what are the moral tones which are problematic? I > would like to get a better understanding of the issues you face on the > ground.
> The Free cultural works definition was developed in an attempt to define a > free cultural work.
> Lessig's book on Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to > Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity was a seminal publication in the > free knowledge movement. Yet the book fell short of defining the a free > cultural work.
> The free cultural works definition was an attempt to define this -- very > similar to the Open Source Software definition. Software is different from > content. There are are other definitional projects like the Open Knowledge > Definition, see:http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0/ -- which in all > material respects also protect the the essential freedoms, as in the case of > the free cultural works definition.
> is also based on the essential freedom -- so we're in good company.
> There are subtle differences, for example concerning the requirement of > attribution. This is also a complex debate ;-).
> The free cultural works definition has been adopted by major OER iniatives. > It has been adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation -- by far the worlds largest > OER project.
> Creative Commons distinguishes between free cultural works approved > licenses and those which don't meet the requirements of the free cultural > works definition,
> See for example the "Free cultural works approved" logo on this CC-BY > license:
> The WikiEducator policy on community governance clearly articulates its > commitment to the free cultural works definition and carries the free > cultural works definition logo on the site.
> I'm not sure whether its possible to achieve a "value-neutral" > interpretation of freedom because freedom is a value, hence the need to > define clearly what different projects mean by freedom at a practical level.
> Look forward to reading your concerns regarding "moral tones"
> Cheers > Wayne
> -----Original Message----- > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 5:13 PM > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> Globally this is OK. On a local scale this isn't so easy. > To my mind - the free cultural works definition needs work. It needs to be > more morally neutral. It *could* be an important defining document, but as > it is, I feel I can't subscribe due to some of the moral tones in it. It > may > have changed some since our big copyright debates from 2007.. so perhaps I > should check..
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Wayne <wmackint...@col.org> wrote:
> > Hi Leigh,
> > That's a real challenge -- but surmountable through good education and > > advice to help folk take an informed decision.
> > By setting a leading example and remaining true to our values -- we'll > win > > many over to our side :-).
> > Cheers > > Wayne
> > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:34 +1200, Leigh Blackall wrote:
> > Hmm, its a big problem my end, because if and when some of my colleagues > > see the use of this and other restrictive licenses, all they see is that > its > > Creative Commons and think that equates to OER... I am sensing a rise in > the > > use of restrictions as the 2nd wave of OER comes on board without fully > > considering it
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> > > wrote:
> > Wayne wrote:
> > Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
> > I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER advocates who > > publish works on the topic of OER under a ND license.
> > I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with Scribd. > That > > would explain the ND - they don't want a (more usable) HTML version out > > there diluting the marketing impact.
Isn't that the page that all the great discussion got lost in the move to Liquid Threads?
brent.
ps. I agree with you. That paragraph is awful and you should remove it immediately. They have regular discussion pages over there too so you might even be able to get into some good discussion on the wiki itself.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com>wrote:
> *In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed >> by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like >> creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can >> be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does >> not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the >> business model of the most powerful publishing companies. *
> Basically, I don't even think the definition needs that whole ranting > paragraph and would be much better without it. We need to do more to > generously acknowledge the beliefs of everyday people who rely on perhaps a > misunderstanding of the protections in All Rights Reserved. We want to come > across as a rational option right? If this document is to be a defining > document, sloppy words like "suppressed by the laws", "god like status", > "monopoly", "impedes the flourishing of culture", "does not even help the > economic situation", and "most powerful publishing companies" are not > referenced and morally and politically loaded. This paragraph should be > deleted and if there is a need to cover the things it attempts to cover, it > should do more to exhibit a generous and sympathetic understanding for > people who believe in All Rights Reserved so as to not put them off side > with what can easily be seen as lefty ranting. Removing the moral tones and > ranty unreferenced statements would help.
> Shall I delete the paragraph?
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org>wrote:
>> Hi Leigh,
>> From your perspective -- what are the moral tones which are problematic? I >> would like to get a better understanding of the issues you face on the >> ground.
>> The Free cultural works definition was developed in an attempt to define a >> free cultural work.
>> Lessig's book on Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law >> to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity was a seminal publication in the >> free knowledge movement. Yet the book fell short of defining the a free >> cultural work.
>> The free cultural works definition was an attempt to define this -- very >> similar to the Open Source Software definition. Software is different from >> content. There are are other definitional projects like the Open Knowledge >> Definition, see:http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0/ -- which in all >> material respects also protect the the essential freedoms, as in the case of >> the free cultural works definition.
>> is also based on the essential freedom -- so we're in good company.
>> There are subtle differences, for example concerning the requirement of >> attribution. This is also a complex debate ;-).
>> The free cultural works definition has been adopted by major OER >> iniatives. It has been adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation -- by far the >> worlds largest OER project.
>> Creative Commons distinguishes between free cultural works approved >> licenses and those which don't meet the requirements of the free cultural >> works definition,
>> See for example the "Free cultural works approved" logo on this CC-BY >> license:
>> The WikiEducator policy on community governance clearly articulates its >> commitment to the free cultural works definition and carries the free >> cultural works definition logo on the site.
>> I'm not sure whether its possible to achieve a "value-neutral" >> interpretation of freedom because freedom is a value, hence the need to >> define clearly what different projects mean by freedom at a practical level.
>> Look forward to reading your concerns regarding "moral tones"
>> Cheers >> Wayne
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall >> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 5:13 PM >> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com >> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>> Globally this is OK. On a local scale this isn't so easy. >> To my mind - the free cultural works definition needs work. It needs to >> be >> more morally neutral. It *could* be an important defining document, but as >> it is, I feel I can't subscribe due to some of the moral tones in it. It >> may >> have changed some since our big copyright debates from 2007.. so perhaps I >> should check..
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Wayne <wmackint...@col.org> wrote:
>> > Hi Leigh,
>> > That's a real challenge -- but surmountable through good education and >> > advice to help folk take an informed decision.
>> > By setting a leading example and remaining true to our values -- we'll >> win >> > many over to our side :-).
>> > Cheers >> > Wayne
>> > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:34 +1200, Leigh Blackall wrote:
>> > Hmm, its a big problem my end, because if and when some of my colleagues >> > see the use of this and other restrictive licenses, all they see is that >> its >> > Creative Commons and think that equates to OER... I am sensing a rise in >> the >> > use of restrictions as the 2nd wave of OER comes on board without fully >> > considering it
>> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> >> > wrote:
>> > Wayne wrote:
>> > Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
>> > I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER advocates who >> > publish works on the topic of OER under a ND license.
>> > I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with Scribd. >> That >> > would explain the ND - they don't want a (more usable) HTML version out >> > there diluting the marketing impact.
It's definitely more radical than it needs to be, and I'd be comfortable with toning it down a bit - Leigh, why don't you start this discussion on the freedomdefined.org site and see whether we can come up with a compromise? I think the preamble should focus on articulating what's right about free cultural works, as opposed to criticizing what's wrong with non-free works. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
> It's definitely more radical than it needs to be, and I'd be
> comfortable with toning it down a bit - Leigh, why don't you start
> this discussion on the freedomdefined.org site and see whether we can
> come up with a compromise? I think the preamble should focus on
> articulating what's right about free cultural works, as opposed to
> criticizing what's wrong with non-free works.
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
That's a good point -- I do agree that paragraph is somewhat radical, particularly to the "uninformed" and the document needs to be refined. As Erik suggests let's get involved on the discussions to refine this paragraph over at freedomdefined.org. Fortunately its an open community :-).
Speaking personally --- I suspect that I've overlooked the impact this would have on "newbies" exploring the OER territory given my passion for open education. I agree that statements like "suppressed" and "god-like" creators does not serve the freedom culture and certainly do not add value.
OK, lets focus on helping the free cultural works definition in refining this paragraph -- particularly for more conservative education audiences. That said, I full support the substance and essential freedoms and permissible restrictions. As an aside CC-BY qualifies under the free cultural works definition, notwithstanding my personal preferences for the sharealike clause :-).
-----Original Message-----
From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 7:09 PM
To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
*In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed
> by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like
> creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can
> be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does
> not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the
> business model of the most powerful publishing companies. *
Basically, I don't even think the definition needs that whole ranting
paragraph and would be much better without it. We need to do more to
generously acknowledge the beliefs of everyday people who rely on perhaps a
misunderstanding of the protections in All Rights Reserved. We want to come
across as a rational option right? If this document is to be a defining
document, sloppy words like "suppressed by the laws", "god like status",
"monopoly", "impedes the flourishing of culture", "does not even help the
economic situation", and "most powerful publishing companies" are not
referenced and morally and politically loaded. This paragraph should be
deleted and if there is a need to cover the things it attempts to cover, it
should do more to exhibit a generous and sympathetic understanding for
people who believe in All Rights Reserved so as to not put them off side
with what can easily be seen as lefty ranting. Removing the moral tones and
ranty unreferenced statements would help.
Shall I delete the paragraph?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org>wrote:
> Hi Leigh,
> From your perspective -- what are the moral tones which are problematic? I
> would like to get a better understanding of the issues you face on the
> ground.
> The Free cultural works definition was developed in an attempt to define a
> free cultural work.
> Lessig's book on Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to
> Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity was a seminal publication in the
> free knowledge movement. Yet the book fell short of defining the a free
> cultural work.
> The free cultural works definition was an attempt to define this -- very
> similar to the Open Source Software definition. Software is different from
> content. There are are other definitional projects like the Open Knowledge
> Definition, see:http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0/ -- which in all
> material respects also protect the the essential freedoms, as in the case of
> the free cultural works definition.
> is also based on the essential freedom -- so we're in good company.
> There are subtle differences, for example concerning the requirement of
> attribution. This is also a complex debate ;-).
> The free cultural works definition has been adopted by major OER iniatives.
> It has been adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation -- by far the worlds largest
> OER project.
> Creative Commons distinguishes between free cultural works approved
> licenses and those which don't meet the requirements of the free cultural
> works definition,
> See for example the "Free cultural works approved" logo on this CC-BY
> license:
> The WikiEducator policy on community governance clearly articulates its
> commitment to the free cultural works definition and carries the free
> cultural works definition logo on the site.
> I'm not sure whether its possible to achieve a "value-neutral"
> interpretation of freedom because freedom is a value, hence the need to
> define clearly what different projects mean by freedom at a practical level.
> Look forward to reading your concerns regarding "moral tones"
> Cheers
> Wayne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 5:13 PM
> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> Globally this is OK. On a local scale this isn't so easy.
> To my mind - the free cultural works definition needs work. It needs to be
> more morally neutral. It *could* be an important defining document, but as
> it is, I feel I can't subscribe due to some of the moral tones in it. It
> may
> have changed some since our big copyright debates from 2007.. so perhaps I
> should check..
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Wayne <wmackint...@col.org> wrote:
> > Hi Leigh,
> > That's a real challenge -- but surmountable through good education and
> > advice to help folk take an informed decision.
> > By setting a leading example and remaining true to our values -- we'll
> win
> > many over to our side :-).
> > Cheers
> > Wayne
> > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:34 +1200, Leigh Blackall wrote:
> > Hmm, its a big problem my end, because if and when some of my colleagues
> > see the use of this and other restrictive licenses, all they see is that
> its
> > Creative Commons and think that equates to OER... I am sensing a rise in
> the
> > use of restrictions as the 2nd wave of OER comes on board without fully
> > considering it
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca>
> > wrote:
> > Wayne wrote:
> > Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
> > I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER advocates who
> > publish works on the topic of OER under a ND license.
> > I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with Scribd.
> That
> > would explain the ND - they don't want a (more usable) HTML version out
> > there diluting the marketing impact.
Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. A testament to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator community will be active in helping with contributions to refine the definition.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM
To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to
the definition to participate:
Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and dry
though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's see and I guess its
only polite.
Randy said: How ironic! Someone should write an opinion piece in a highly
> regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and some might say,
> hypocrisy.
> Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. A
> testament to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator community
> will be active in helping with contributions to refine the definition.
> Here's your opportunity :-)
> Cheers
> Wayne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller
> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM
> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to
> the definition to participate:
My own experience with the open movement is that nothing is cut and dry. The success and survival of the top open projects depend on community support, listening and feeling the pulse of the community.
Openness and the willingness to adapt, refine and get better without compromising core vales is what feeds and sustains successful open projects. With every open project there is always the opportunity to fork. The risk with forking is the challenge of achieving critical mass for sustainability. It's a self-organising system.
WikiEducator is an important and significant community in the global OER space -- the fact that Erik has opened the discussion is a testament to our contribution to the freedom culture but also a validation of the openness of the free cultural works definition.
I don't see this as a "cut and dry" scenario rather an opportunity to make a positive contribution to what we collectively are trying to achieve. The real test will be whether the WikiEducator community and others take up the opportunity in changing the world for the better :-).
-----Original Message-----
From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM
To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and dry
though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's see and I guess its
only polite.
Randy said: How ironic! Someone should write an opinion piece in a highly
> regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and some might say,
> hypocrisy.
> Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. A
> testament to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator community
> will be active in helping with contributions to refine the definition.
> Here's your opportunity :-)
> Cheers
> Wayne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller
> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM
> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to
> the definition to participate:
I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of
unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and
take action on that paragraph...?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org>wrote:
> My own experience with the open movement is that nothing is cut and dry.
> The success and survival of the top open projects depend on community
> support, listening and feeling the pulse of the community.
> Openness and the willingness to adapt, refine and get better without
> compromising core vales is what feeds and sustains successful open projects.
> With every open project there is always the opportunity to fork. The risk
> with forking is the challenge of achieving critical mass for sustainability.
> It's a self-organising system.
> WikiEducator is an important and significant community in the global OER
> space -- the fact that Erik has opened the discussion is a testament to our
> contribution to the freedom culture but also a validation of the openness of
> the free cultural works definition.
> I don't see this as a "cut and dry" scenario rather an opportunity to make
> a positive contribution to what we collectively are trying to achieve. The
> real test will be whether the WikiEducator community and others take up the
> opportunity in changing the world for the better :-).
> Cheers
> Wayne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM
> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and dry
> though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's see and I guess its
> only polite.
> Randy said: How ironic! Someone should write an opinion piece in a highly
> > regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and some might say,
> > hypocrisy.
> > Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. A
> > testament to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator community
> > will be active in helping with contributions to refine the definition.
> > Here's your opportunity :-)
> > Cheers
> > Wayne
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller
> > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM
> > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> > I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to
> > the definition to participate:
-----Original Message-----
From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM
To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
Yes, you are right.. I am, as always impatient :)
I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of
unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and
take action on that paragraph...?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org>wrote:
> Hi Leigh,
> My own experience with the open movement is that nothing is cut and dry.
> The success and survival of the top open projects depend on community
> support, listening and feeling the pulse of the community.
> Openness and the willingness to adapt, refine and get better without
> compromising core vales is what feeds and sustains successful open projects.
> With every open project there is always the opportunity to fork. The risk
> with forking is the challenge of achieving critical mass for sustainability.
> It's a self-organising system.
> WikiEducator is an important and significant community in the global OER
> space -- the fact that Erik has opened the discussion is a testament to our
> contribution to the freedom culture but also a validation of the openness of
> the free cultural works definition.
> I don't see this as a "cut and dry" scenario rather an opportunity to make
> a positive contribution to what we collectively are trying to achieve. The
> real test will be whether the WikiEducator community and others take up the
> opportunity in changing the world for the better :-).
> Cheers
> Wayne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM
> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and dry
> though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's see and I guess its
> only polite.
> Randy said: How ironic! Someone should write an opinion piece in a highly
> > regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and some might say,
> > hypocrisy.
> > Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. A
> > testament to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator community
> > will be active in helping with contributions to refine the definition.
> > Here's your opportunity :-)
> > Cheers
> > Wayne
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller
> > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM
> > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> > I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to
> > the definition to participate:
I have to read your post by using google translation now ,even I could not read it by using proxy , butSO I am reading it in Chinese now !
remember I was talking about the dragon story in Chinese , it really bring me back to home
If you can ,would you please send me the orignial English version so I can read maybe translation it into Chinese and post it on the web somewhere so more people can read
> I'd suggest posting that on the freedomdefined site and lets see how they > respond.
> Cheers > Wayne
> -----Original Message----- > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> Yes, you are right.. I am, as always impatient :)
> I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of > unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and > take action on that paragraph...?
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org > >wrote:
> > Hi Leigh,
> > My own experience with the open movement is that nothing is cut and dry. > > The success and survival of the top open projects depend on community > > support, listening and feeling the pulse of the community.
> > Openness and the willingness to adapt, refine and get better without > > compromising core vales is what feeds and sustains successful open > projects. > > With every open project there is always the opportunity to fork. The risk > > with forking is the challenge of achieving critical mass for > sustainability. > > It's a self-organising system.
> > WikiEducator is an important and significant community in the global OER > > space -- the fact that Erik has opened the discussion is a testament to > our > > contribution to the freedom culture but also a validation of the openness > of > > the free cultural works definition.
> > I don't see this as a "cut and dry" scenario rather an opportunity to > make > > a positive contribution to what we collectively are trying to achieve. > The > > real test will be whether the WikiEducator community and others take up > the > > opportunity in changing the world for the better :-).
> > Cheers > > Wayne
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall > > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM > > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com > > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> > Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and dry > > though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's see and I guess > its > > only polite.
> > Randy said: How ironic! Someone should write an opinion piece in a highly > > > regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and some might > say, > > > hypocrisy.
> > > Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. A > > > testament to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator > community > > > will be active in helping with contributions to refine the definition.
> > > Here's your opportunity :-)
> > > Cheers > > > Wayne
> > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller > > > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM > > > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com > > > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> > > I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to > > > the definition to participate:
Interesting discussion. have you tried asking them if they would waive
the ND?
I was reading this book through after Stephen D. had published the
link on OLDaily... I said to myself, it is pretty amazing what we are
seeing. The fact the book is even a CC-BY-SA-ND, pretty much means I
could use the text (without cost) in any course on OER I may want to
teach. No student paying $200 for it...
But I do agree the presence on the ND means they really don't get the
Open... of OER
Cheers,
On Sep 17, 11:37 pm, "Wong Leo" <leolao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to read your post by using google translation now ,even I could not
> read it by using proxy , butSO I am reading it in Chinese now !
> remember I was talking about the dragon story in Chinese , it really bring
> me back to home
> If you can ,would you please send me the orignial English version so I can
> read maybe translation it into Chinese and post it on the web somewhere so
> more people can read
> you are amazing
> Leo
> 2008/9/18 Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org>
> > Good question,
> > I'd suggest posting that on the freedomdefined site and lets see how they
> > respond.
> > Cheers
> > Wayne
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
> > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM
> > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> > Yes, you are right.. I am, as always impatient :)
> > I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of
> > unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and
> > take action on that paragraph...?
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org
> > >wrote:
> > > Hi Leigh,
> > > My own experience with the open movement is that nothing is cut and dry.
> > > The success and survival of the top open projects depend on community
> > > support, listening and feeling the pulse of the community.
> > > Openness and the willingness to adapt, refine and get better without
> > > compromising core vales is what feeds and sustains successful open
> > projects.
> > > With every open project there is always the opportunity to fork. The risk
> > > with forking is the challenge of achieving critical mass for
> > sustainability.
> > > It's a self-organising system.
> > > WikiEducator is an important and significant community in the global OER
> > > space -- the fact that Erik has opened the discussion is a testament to
> > our
> > > contribution to the freedom culture but also a validation of the openness
> > of
> > > the free cultural works definition.
> > > I don't see this as a "cut and dry" scenario rather an opportunity to
> > make
> > > a positive contribution to what we collectively are trying to achieve.
> > The
> > > real test will be whether the WikiEducator community and others take up
> > the
> > > opportunity in changing the world for the better :-).
> > > Cheers
> > > Wayne
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
> > > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM
> > > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> > > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> > > Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and dry
> > > though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's see and I guess
> > its
> > > only polite.
> > > Randy said: How ironic! Someone should write an opinion piece in a highly
> > > > regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and some might
> > say,
> > > > hypocrisy.
> > > > Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. A
> > > > testament to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator
> > community
> > > > will be active in helping with contributions to refine the definition.
> > > > Here's your opportunity :-)
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Wayne
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller
> > > > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM
> > > > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> > > > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
> > > > I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to
> > > > the definition to participate:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Wong Leo <leolao...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Leigh ,
> I have to read your post by using google translation now ,even I could not > read it by using proxy , butSO I am reading it in Chinese now !
> remember I was talking about the dragon story in Chinese , it really bring > me back to home
> If you can ,would you please send me the orignial English version so I can > read maybe translation it into Chinese and post it on the web somewhere so > more people can read
> you are amazing
> Leo
> 2008/9/18 Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org>
> Good question,
>> I'd suggest posting that on the freedomdefined site and lets see how they >> respond.
>> Cheers >> Wayne
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall >> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM >> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com >> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>> Yes, you are right.. I am, as always impatient :)
>> I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of >> unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and >> take action on that paragraph...?
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org >> >wrote:
>> > Hi Leigh,
>> > My own experience with the open movement is that nothing is cut and dry. >> > The success and survival of the top open projects depend on community >> > support, listening and feeling the pulse of the community.
>> > Openness and the willingness to adapt, refine and get better without >> > compromising core vales is what feeds and sustains successful open >> projects. >> > With every open project there is always the opportunity to fork. The >> risk >> > with forking is the challenge of achieving critical mass for >> sustainability. >> > It's a self-organising system.
>> > WikiEducator is an important and significant community in the global OER >> > space -- the fact that Erik has opened the discussion is a testament to >> our >> > contribution to the freedom culture but also a validation of the >> openness of >> > the free cultural works definition.
>> > I don't see this as a "cut and dry" scenario rather an opportunity to >> make >> > a positive contribution to what we collectively are trying to achieve. >> The >> > real test will be whether the WikiEducator community and others take up >> the >> > opportunity in changing the world for the better :-).
>> > Cheers >> > Wayne
>> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall >> > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM >> > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com >> > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>> > Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and >> dry >> > though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's see and I guess >> its >> > only polite.
>> > Randy said: How ironic! Someone should write an opinion piece in a >> highly >> > > regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and some might >> say, >> > > hypocrisy.
>> > > Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. A >> > > testament to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator >> community >> > > will be active in helping with contributions to refine the definition.
>> > > Here's your opportunity :-)
>> > > Cheers >> > > Wayne
>> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller >> > > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM >> > > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com >> > > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>> > > I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to >> > > the definition to participate:
yes ,http://yeeyan.com is a website I use to translate the interesting articles by English edu blogger into Chinese , I can send your article using google document or in their wiki http://pro.yeeyan.com ( where I use to translate the Connectivism course by G/S) into Chinese )
It is nothing but yes please send it to me coz I canot open your blog in anyway , and I will try my best to translate it into Chinese ( hope it is not too long ) and send the URL back to WE here
> Thanks Leo, but I am most certainly not amazing. Just an outspoken guy who > often speaks before thinking and so far been lucky.
> The original text? You mean the text from my blog?
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Wong Leo <leolao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Leigh ,
>> I have to read your post by using google translation now ,even I could not >> read it by using proxy , butSO I am reading it in Chinese now !
>> remember I was talking about the dragon story in Chinese , it really bring >> me back to home
>> If you can ,would you please send me the orignial English version so I can >> read maybe translation it into Chinese and post it on the web somewhere so >> more people can read
>> you are amazing
>> Leo
>> 2008/9/18 Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org>
>> Good question,
>>> I'd suggest posting that on the freedomdefined site and lets see how they >>> respond.
>>> Cheers >>> Wayne
>>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall >>> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM >>> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com >>> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>>> Yes, you are right.. I am, as always impatient :)
>>> I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of >>> unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus >>> and >>> take action on that paragraph...?
>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org >>> >wrote:
>>> > Hi Leigh,
>>> > My own experience with the open movement is that nothing is cut and >>> dry. >>> > The success and survival of the top open projects depend on community >>> > support, listening and feeling the pulse of the community.
>>> > Openness and the willingness to adapt, refine and get better without >>> > compromising core vales is what feeds and sustains successful open >>> projects. >>> > With every open project there is always the opportunity to fork. The >>> risk >>> > with forking is the challenge of achieving critical mass for >>> sustainability. >>> > It's a self-organising system.
>>> > WikiEducator is an important and significant community in the global >>> OER >>> > space -- the fact that Erik has opened the discussion is a testament to >>> our >>> > contribution to the freedom culture but also a validation of the >>> openness of >>> > the free cultural works definition.
>>> > I don't see this as a "cut and dry" scenario rather an opportunity to >>> make >>> > a positive contribution to what we collectively are trying to achieve. >>> The >>> > real test will be whether the WikiEducator community and others take up >>> the >>> > opportunity in changing the world for the better :-).
>>> > Cheers >>> > Wayne
>>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall >>> > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM >>> > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com >>> > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>>> > Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and >>> dry >>> > though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's see and I guess >>> its >>> > only polite.
>>> > Randy said: How ironic! Someone should write an opinion piece in a >>> highly >>> > > regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and some might >>> say, >>> > > hypocrisy.
>>> > > Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. A >>> > > testament to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator >>> community >>> > > will be active in helping with contributions to refine the >>> definition.
>>> > > Here's your opportunity :-)
>>> > > Cheers >>> > > Wayne
>>> > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller >>> > > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM >>> > > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com >>> > > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>>> > > I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to >>> > > the definition to participate:
MIT have published a text called Opening Up Education<http://mitpress.mit.edu/opening_up_education/>, but under a copyright license that is one step short of All Rights Reserved. MIT is just not getting the message are they? They are not really about open education at all!
On the other hand, Utah State University in collaboration with the Commonwealth of Learning and individual designers have published the OER Handbook <http://www.wikieducator.org/OER_Handbook/educator_version_one>. Available under a free and practically nonrestrictive license, in both a wiki and a printed and bound text on Lulu.
We are working on a number of other texts as we speak (not to mention videos and stuff all over the place!), all of it under CC By.
MIT should stop their work in "open courseware" and "open education" or risk influencing a second wave of OER developers to basically construct educational resources that may as well be All Rights Reserved and leave us in a position not much better than where we started.
Risks like the trend that MIT are setting necessitate a project like the Free Cultural Works Definition <http://freedomdefined.org/Definition> were it sets out to clearly delineate what is free and what is restrictive. It prevents by way of stating a principle, oganisations cashing in on the hard work of OER campaigners.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Wong Leo <leolao...@gmail.com> wrote: > yes ,http://yeeyan.com is a website I use to translate the interesting > articles by English edu blogger into Chinese , I can send your article using > google document or in their wiki http://pro.yeeyan.com ( where I use to > translate the Connectivism course by G/S) into Chinese )
> It is nothing but yes please send it to me coz I canot open your blog in > anyway , and I will try my best to translate it into Chinese ( hope it is > not too long ) and send the URL back to WE here
> Thanks Leo, but I am most certainly not amazing. Just an outspoken guy who >> often speaks before thinking and so far been lucky.
>> The original text? You mean the text from my blog?
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Wong Leo <leolao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Leigh ,
>>> I have to read your post by using google translation now ,even I could >>> not read it by using proxy , butSO I am reading it in Chinese now !
>>> remember I was talking about the dragon story in Chinese , it really >>> bring me back to home
>>> If you can ,would you please send me the orignial English version so I >>> can read maybe translation it into Chinese and post it on the web somewhere >>> so more people can read
>>> you are amazing
>>> Leo
>>> 2008/9/18 Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org>
>>> Good question,
>>>> I'd suggest posting that on the freedomdefined site and lets see how >>>> they respond.
>>>> Cheers >>>> Wayne
>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall >>>> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM >>>> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>>>> Yes, you are right.. I am, as always impatient :)
>>>> I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of >>>> unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus >>>> and >>>> take action on that paragraph...?
>>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org >>>> >wrote:
>>>> > Hi Leigh,
>>>> > My own experience with the open movement is that nothing is cut and >>>> dry. >>>> > The success and survival of the top open projects depend on community >>>> > support, listening and feeling the pulse of the community.
>>>> > Openness and the willingness to adapt, refine and get better without >>>> > compromising core vales is what feeds and sustains successful open >>>> projects. >>>> > With every open project there is always the opportunity to fork. The >>>> risk >>>> > with forking is the challenge of achieving critical mass for >>>> sustainability. >>>> > It's a self-organising system.
>>>> > WikiEducator is an important and significant community in the global >>>> OER >>>> > space -- the fact that Erik has opened the discussion is a testament >>>> to our >>>> > contribution to the freedom culture but also a validation of the >>>> openness of >>>> > the free cultural works definition.
>>>> > I don't see this as a "cut and dry" scenario rather an opportunity to >>>> make >>>> > a positive contribution to what we collectively are trying to achieve. >>>> The >>>> > real test will be whether the WikiEducator community and others take >>>> up the >>>> > opportunity in changing the world for the better :-).
>>>> > Cheers >>>> > Wayne
>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall >>>> > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM >>>> > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com >>>> > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>>>> > Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and >>>> dry >>>> > though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's see and I guess >>>> its >>>> > only polite.
>>>> > Randy said: How ironic! Someone should write an opinion piece in a >>>> highly >>>> > > regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and some might >>>> say, >>>> > > hypocrisy.
>>>> > > Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. >>>> A >>>> > > testament to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator >>>> community >>>> > > will be active in helping with contributions to refine the >>>> definition.
>>>> > > Here's your opportunity :-)
>>>> > > Cheers >>>> > > Wayne
>>>> > > -----Original Message----- >>>> > > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller >>>> > > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM >>>> > > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com >>>> > > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>>>> > > I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to >>>> > > the definition to participate:
