"Is the ‘closed’ mindset of the Open Educational Resources community its own worst enemy?"

[Maria Droujkova]

This post made me pause and think. 

As someone whose entity is an LLC, it hurts to meet suspicion (without any provocation from my end - simply because my company isn't a nonprofit) in the open ed space. Check out the whole list of issues, like "Educational cynicism" and "Obsession with reusability". 

http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.ca/2015/05/is-closed-mindset-of-open-educational.html

What do you think?

Cheers,
Dr. Maria Droujkova

NaturalMath.com
919-388-1721

-- .- - ....

 

[Caine, Abel]

I don't believe the OER Community has been attacking Wikipedia and Khan Academy, just the traditional educators.

The other points about the OER Community not taking advantage of social media etc at global scale could be valid.

Regards,
Abel

---

From: Maria Droujkova
Sent: ‎17/‎05/‎2015 04:21
To: OE...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [OERU] "Is the ‘closed’ mindset of the Open Educational Resources community its own worst enemy?"

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "OER university" group.
To post to this group, send email to oer-uni...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
oer-universit...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/oer-university?hl=en?hl=en
Visit the OER univeristy page on http://wikieducator.org/OER_university

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OERu" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to OERu+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Maria Droujkova]

Math ed people have been... well, highly critical of Khan. And not always in friendly ways.

[Stephen Downes]

I cited this article favourably in my newsletter last week. I didn't see it as particularly anti-commercial or pro-non-profit (indeed, point number 6 is specifically pro-commercial). But I did find that it made some really good points.

 

- several points criticized the OER movement's deference to a very traditional model of teaching and publishing, and criticizes the OER movement's dislike of thinkings like Wikipedia, Khan and MOOCs, along with scepticism toward social media. It criticizes teachers' dislike of using OERs directly.

 

- other points criticize members of the OER movement for being less focused on the benefit to students and more focused on the benefit to themselves. That's the point (in my view) of the movement's undue emphasis on the CC-by license. 'Free at point of access' matters to students, and an undue emphasis on republishing takes away from that. "More focus on making education accessible through lower costs is what’s needed."

 

- too little attention to sustainability. There is, writes Clark, an undue scepticism toward commerically-funded initiatives. Marketing is poor, and the OER movement does not understand social media. There's a failure to learn from models of open access that are sustainable.

 

I think these are all very good points. My own approach to open education has been to focus on access, syndication of metadata, and formation of communities around resources. This is very different from the model of republishing free resources that seems to characterize most dialogue and effort from the OER community.

 

-- Stephen

 

From: OE...@googlegroups.com [mailto:OE...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Maria Droujkova
Sent: May-16-15 11:20 PM
To: OE...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [OERU] "Is the ‘closed’ mindset of the Open Educational Resources community its own worst enemy?"

 

This post made me pause and think. 

--

[rory]

ALL

I am at pains to guess who in the OER community are these people with the closed mindset. I have been around for over a decade and I don't know anyone in the community that has displayed the mindset that he describes. On the other hand, every one of these points is common among opponents/sceptics of OER and I have run into these arguments and still hear them expressed by naysayers. I thank Donald for this listing that puts their objections into perspective (and for the CAVE acronym for the naysayers).
Rory

Rory McGreal
UNESCO/COL/ICDE Chair in OER
Athabasca University

[Maria Droujkova]

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Stephen Downes <ste...@downes.ca> wrote:

I cited this article favourably in my newsletter last week. I didn't see it as particularly anti-commercial or pro-non-profit (indeed, point number 6 is specifically pro-commercial). But I did find that it made some really good points.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - the article isn't anti-commercial, I could just relate to the part of the article that said corporations are sometimes met with suspicion.

[Steve Foerster]

I completely agree with Rory.  The headline refers to the OER community, but the complaints seems to apply very poorly to us but pretty well to many educators outside of our community.

-=Steve=-


--
Stephen H. Foerster
President | New World University
steve.f...@newworld.ac | http://newworld.ac

[Stephen Downes]

Hiya All,

 

> I am at pains to guess who in the OER community are these people with the closed mindset. - Rory

 

I don't want to get into the task of naming names, so I won't respond directly to Rory's challenge. But I think it is clear that there is evidence of all three of the lines of thinking I outlined in my summary of Donald Clark's post.

 

- traditional model of teaching and publishing

 

I could point to the logic model of OERu itself, which is focused on traditional courses, programs and certificates, offered by traditional universities.

 

- other points criticize members of the OER movement for being less focused on the benefit to students and more focused on the benefit to themselves.

 

There is a membership in this group and others that constantly promotes the use of CC By-SA and CC-0 licenses, to the point of labling any other license 'not free' and detrimental to the OER movement. One of the major arguments of such members is that their business model depends on republishing for commercial sale materioals licensed in this way.

 

- too little attention to sustainability

 

I personally feel this is the weakest of his points, given the point just sketched above, but the thrust of this points is to suggest that models like Khan, Duolingo, MOOCs, etc., which grant free access, but not republishing, are sustainable models, and yet can be observed to be criticized by the OER and open access community, usually on the grounds of incorrect terms of use or licensing.

 

We may agree of disagree with these criticisms of the OER movement. But they're not being only by OER sceptics. I take it as well established and empirical fact that these arguments are made by members of the community - a quick scan through the archives of this mailing list and other OER-proponent mailing lists, will easily confirm this. And I know this because I find myself very often the person responding to these points, when made in these very fora.

 

-- Stephen

--

[Alex P.Real]

Hi,

I can only agree with Stephen's reading of the situation. Self-criticism is quite healthy. Regardless of ideals & intention we're all bound by cultural & personal constraints and embedded within social networks of interests of which we may be un/aware.

We're human with all the greatness & weakness this entails, and I welcome any opportunity for self-reflection to, at least, be conscious of "limitations" and socio-cultural "programming". Ideally, this leads to evolution, but that may not always be feasible or easy.

Cheers,

Alex P.Real

[rory]

Stephen,
Thanks for your comments. See my responses below.
All the best.

Rory

Rory McGreal
UNESCO/COL/ICDE Chair in OER
Athabasca University

On 2015-05-18 9:39 AM, Stephen Downes wrote:

Hiya All,

 

> I am at pains to guess who in the OER community are these people with the closed mindset. - Rory

 

I don't want to get into the task of naming names, so I won't respond directly to Rory's challenge. But I think it is clear that there is evidence of all three of the lines of thinking I outlined in my summary of Donald Clark's post.

 

- traditional model of teaching and publishing

 

I could point to the logic model of OERu itself, which is focused on traditional courses, programs and certificates, offered by traditional universities.

RORY>> There is NO focus on teaching nor publishing in OERu. OERu learners don't even need teachers in the OERu model. Nor is there any traditional publishing as OERu focuses on assembling OER and creating pathways. Moreover, focusing on one model does not mean that you discount other models.  That is the "either - or" fallacy.  And, I would argue that courses, programs and certificates are of far more benefit to students than uncertified learning objects with no assessment or accreditation. Personal Learning Environments have been around for thousands of years - much longer than formal education - and could be considered to be far more "traditional" than formal education. And, these informal learners generally required "certification" if only the verbal approval of their "master" before being accepted into a trade or profession.

 

- other points criticize members of the OER movement for being less focused on the benefit to students and more focused on the benefit to themselves.

 

There is a membership in this group and others that constantly promotes the use of CC By-SA and CC-0 licenses, to the point of labling any other license 'not free' and detrimental to the OER movement. One of the major arguments of such members is that their business model depends on republishing for commercial sale materioals licensed in this way.

RORY>>> I don't see how licence discussions affect the benefit to students or teachers? Your comment does not address this. Preferring one licence over others and actively promoting it  as you do and labeling another licence as less free (no one is arguing that adding an NC licence is NOT free - just less free). You have been arguing that the NC licence is more free. These differences do not amount to less focus on students either way. In our Alberta  OER initiative, OER proponents focused on benefits to students. as they have in BC and in US states. Of course we also have to focus attention on teachers because if they don't adopt OER, then the students don't benefit as much.

 

- too little attention to sustainability

 

I personally feel this is the weakest of his points, given the point just sketched above, but the thrust of this points is to suggest that models like Khan, Duolingo, MOOCs, etc., which grant free access, but not republishing, are sustainable models, and yet can be observed to be criticized by the OER and open access community, usually on the grounds of incorrect terms of use or licensing.

RORY>>> I too agree that this is a weaker argument. However, I don't see them as arguably more sustainable than OER initiatives. When the funding ends, what will happen to them. Is their reliance on donations and/or investors sustainable? That is to be seen. And, I don't see arguing for a more open licence as a criticism, rather it is a preference.

 

We may agree of disagree with these criticisms of the OER movement. But they're not being only by OER sceptics. I take it as well established and empirical fact that these arguments are made by members of the community - a quick scan through the archives of this mailing list and other OER-proponent mailing lists, will easily confirm this. And I know this because I find myself very often the person responding to these points, when made in these very fora.

RORY>> Open discussions and disagreements within the OER movement, in my opinion does not amount to criticism of different views. You and I have differed, but I never thought I was criticising. NC restrictions, can be considered less open or not but this is a matter of degree rather than a take it or leave it proposition. I would need to be pointed to OER community discussions that consisted of a "WAR" on Wikipedia, MOOCs, or Khan? Sniping?  I must have missed them. On the other hand you and others have argued about corporate involvement. SCORM discussions petered out long ago.

Yes, the success of OER to date is more based on personal use by learners, that is why we need to focus more on formal systems to expand efforts beyond personal use to ensure that those learners who want formal accreditation for their learning have routes to attain them.

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi everyone 

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Stephen Downes <ste...@downes.ca> wrote:

 

There is a membership in this group and others that constantly promotes the use of CC By-SA and CC-0 licenses, to the point of labling any other license 'not free' and detrimental to the OER movement. One of the major arguments of such members is that their business model depends on republishing for commercial sale materioals licensed in this way.

Stephen is correct, I have frequently noted that the NC restriction does not meet the requirements of free cultural works approved licenses on this list and have referred to these licenses as "non-free" licences.  Stephen is right to point out that accessing NC licensed materials at no-cost is free. However, it is also true that restricting the rights of an individual to earn a living from NC licensed resources is a material restriction of freedom, and in this sense the NC license is a "non-free" license because it restricts essential freedoms.  (Stephen and I have debated this topic extensively in the past - and I don't want to belabour the list with these debates - those who are interested can read the archives.) 

I do want to articulate a few of the reasons why the OER Foundation subscribes to free cultural works approved licenses. Interestingly, our major justification has little to do with generating revenue from the commercial sale of materials. 

For some advocates of free cultural works approved licenses, the model of generating revenue through commercial sale of openly licensed materials is a major justification for the use of CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. So for example, OpenStax College participate in revenue sharing models with corporate publishers as revenue stream contributing to the sustainability of their business model. 

However, this is not the major reason why the OER Foundation (OERF) does not remix NC materials into our open online courses. (Of course we frequently link out to NC and open access materials even if they are all rights reserved.) In the case of the OER Foundation, a non-profit organisation, we do not generate revenue through the commercial sale of materials, nor is it our intention to do so in the future. The reasons underpinning our principle of engagement for OERu courses to use free cultural works approve licenses is pragmatic:

1. The definition of what constitutes non-commercial activity in practice, is determined by the copyright holder. For example: Some NC copyright holders will not have any objection to money changing hands for ancillary services like assessment services based on the use of CC-BY-NC-SA education materials, whereas other NC copyright holders may deem this activity to be commercial.  Some NC copyright holders have no objection to their resources being used on sites which carry commercial advertising, whereas other NC copyright holders object to their materials being used on sites which generate revenue through advertising. At a practical level, because of the SA provision, when remixing two CC-BY-NC-SA resources, the re-mixer will need to determine whether both copyright holders have the same interpretation of commercial activity in order to apply the license to the derivative work, because the remix must be released under the identical license. The transaction costs of determining alignment of the copyright holder's definition of what constitutes commercial activity for remixing courses is not worth the effort, and this a major reason why we don't remix NC materials in OERu courses. 
2. The second reason is managing the potential litigation risks for the OERu. Consider for instance that many corporate publishers who are participating in the open access movement typically use the NC restriction to protect their own commercial interests. OERu partners will be generating revenue for ancillary services like assessment or tutorial services, largely on a cost-recovery basis. Any courses which are based on the remix of NC materials potentially increases our litigation risks for the OERu where corporate publishers deem our activities to be commercial in nature.  For now, I don't think the OERu is seen as a "commercial risk" to any publisher or commercial provider of elearning, but our model has the potential to scale by an order of magnitude. For a small non-profit organisation, the risk of being tied up in litigation over the remix of NC materials will put us "out of business".  This is a risk we prefer to avoid because our mission of widening access to more affordable education is too important to fail. 

As I indicated above, this does not restrict any OERu course from linking to NC materials or even linking to all rights reserved materials which are openly accessible. Moreover, I think the formal education sector is far too conservative in its application of fair use / fair dealing - but that's another topic of discussion. 

 

UNESCO/COL/ICDE Chair in OER

Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter: Mackiwg

[Dr. Nellie Muller Deutsch]

I'd like to thank Stephen for mentioning NC and Wayne for clarifying the position that the OER movement is taking in this regard. The statement that OER will be put "out of business" says it all. I guess I'll stick to organizing informal online conferences and MOOCs. 

Thank you. 

Warm wishes,

Dr. Nellie Deutsch
Educational Technology & Leadership
About Me

1-647-694-0183

Teach @ WizIQ

To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Drop by drop the bucket is filled, moment by moment awareness is developed ~ Unknown

--

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Nellie,

OER will not be put out of business - we are growing from strength to strength because of our foresight and judicious strategic planning for sustainable operations combined with an intimate understanding of the associated challenges from those with commercial interests who would like to see the open education movement fail. 

To be clear - my comments were not on the OER movement in general, but rather our own experiences and approaches at the OER Foundation. I can't speak for all OER projects, but the OER Foundation is succeeding in transforming the question from:  How do you achieve sustainable OER projects? ---> How will institutions remain sustainable without OER?  

Sustainability is an important question for OER projects, and if we define fiscal sustainability as initiatives which can sustain themselves without reliance on 3rd party donor funding, then the OERu is well on track to achieving this objective of sustainable and scalable opetarions. The OERF is entering the next phase of our journey without the burden of accumulated deficit - which is a more advantageous position when compared to commercial xMOOC providers which need to figure out how to pay back millions of dollars of venture capital investment. Moreover, +76% of the OERF revenue for our operations are generated from sustainable resources. Watch this space ...

Your focus on organising informal conferences and MOOCs is an important contribution to building the ecosystem and testament to the power of the open web which affords you the freedom to do this. You are also free to reuse and integrate any OERu courses for your own MOOCs thanks to open licensing.

--

Wayne Mackintosh
Director OER Foundation

[Maria Droujkova]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Wayne Mackintosh <mackinto...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sustainability is an important question for OER projects, and if we define fiscal sustainability as initiatives which can sustain themselves without reliance on 3rd party donor funding, then the OERu is well on track to achieving this objective of sustainable and scalable opetarions. The OERF is entering the next phase of our journey without the burden of accumulated deficit - which is a more advantageous position when compared to commercial xMOOC providers which need to figure out how to pay back millions of dollars of venture capital investment. Moreover, +76% of the OERF revenue for our operations are generated from sustainable resources. Watch this space ...

This is a useful conversation to have. I appreciate it because Natural Math is a provider of open courses. I guess they are cmOOCs if you use the common abbreviations: connected, miniature (the largest had about 600 people) and open. 

We use crowdfunding models and invite the help of volunteers to stay sustainable and out of debt. Which has been working reasonably well so far. Right now I see our largest business challenge as marketing. You need different approaches to market courses as a small independent company that offers just a few courses, compared to a well-known university or a corporation that brands their courses by famous universities. 

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Maria,

Indeed, this is a valuable conversation. 

I am impressed with the NaturalMath.com model, which if I understand it correctly is a pay what you can if you can model. It is refreshing to know that crowd-funding has worked well for your initiative thus far. 

In the early days of the OERF we attempted an open donation model to help support the free infrastructure we provide. It did not work well for our context. Perhaps tertiary education is different in the sense that educators don't donate to supporting the no-cost technologies which enable open collaboration. Not surprising given that educators are not on the list of the top ten jobs ;-) That said, I am grateful that I have found funding sources for to keep WikiEducator operational - In Feb 2016 we've been able to provide free wiki hosting for educators around the world for a decade. 

As a commercial operation I see that you use a CC-BY-NC-SA license. I'm interested to ask, if you are willing to share:

1. As copyright holder, what does NaturalMath.com define as "commercial"?  - in other words, what use of your resources would you consider to be "non-commercial"?
2. Why did you choose a NC restriction as a commercial company working as a social enterprise?
3. Has your company incorporated any CC-BY or public domain resources and re-licensed derivative works as CC-BY-NC-SA?

W

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "OER university" group.
To post to this group, send email to oer-uni...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
oer-universit...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/oer-university?hl=en?hl=en
Visit the OER univeristy page on http://wikieducator.org/OER_university

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OERu" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to OERu+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Stephen Downes]

Hiya all,

 

This post by an unrepentant Wayne makes most if not all of the points I have been saying that proponents of OER make. We can debate the merits of these points one by one, if you wish. But I think there can no longer be doubt that these points are made, and that Donald Clark's argument is therefore clearly demonstrated.

 

The audacity of this point makes me gasp: "restricting the rights of an individual to earn a living from NC licensed resources is a material restriction of freedom." This is a clear case of championing the 'freedom' of the person who builds fences over the freedom of the person who wants to access the commons.

 

-- Stephen

 

 

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Stephen,

As a philosopher - which freedoms do you consider to be more important?

The freedom of individuals to use open resources as they wish or the freedoms of the creators of those resources to determine how they should be used? 

For clarification - do you mean unrepentant in the sense of "showing no regret for one's wrongdoings"? 

W

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "OER university" group.
To post to this group, send email to oer-uni...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
oer-universit...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/oer-university?hl=en?hl=en
Visit the OER univeristy page on http://wikieducator.org/OER_university

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OERu" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to OERu+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Wayne Mackintosh
Director OER Foundation

[rory]

Stephen,
I have asked you many times for ONE example of this "building fences". You have yet to supply one. Yes, companies can "fence" their copy of the OER as can anyone else. But they can't fence anyone else's copy. The NC licence does NOT stop non-commercial entities from putting a fence on their copies. NC only applies to commercial uses. Many non-commercial orgs do put their copy behind a firewall. Many mix their NC OER with commercial content in their courses which are limited to only their students, using their fair dealing rights or even buying a textbook. Only the SA licence legally forces users to keep the material open.
Actually for me to cede your point all I would need is that ONE example of a commercial company blocking ALL copies of an OER not just their own. The NC licence builds a fence and stops legitimate users from accessing the OER. Your argument is the one closing off the commons. The agricultural commons in England and the open range in America were open to ALL users in the community, whether they made a profit or not. You want to restrict the use of the commons to only users you approve of, who do things your way, who adhere your interpretation of reality. Wayne's argument does not stop people from building fences over their one copy. Your argument doesnt stop them either. On the contrary, your argument is a clear and unambiguous case of restricting access to the commons.
From an unrepentant Rory
All the best.

Rory McGreal
UNESCO/COL/ICDE Chair in OER
Athabasca University

--

[Stephen Downes]

For those who want to reread my position on enclosure, this item from 2008 is a good review of the case. http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2008/12/open-content-enclosure-and-conversion.html

 

-- Stephen

 

From: OE...@googlegroups.com [mailto:OE...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of rory
Sent: May-19-15 9:15 AM
To: OE...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [OERU] "Is the ‘closed’ mindset of the Open Educational Resources community its own worst enemy?"

 

Stephen,

[Maria Droujkova]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Wayne Mackintosh <mackinto...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Maria,

Indeed, this is a valuable conversation. 

I am impressed with the NaturalMath.com model, which if I understand it correctly is a pay what you can if you can model. It is refreshing to know that crowd-funding has worked well for your initiative thus far. 

In the early days of the OERF we attempted an open donation model to help support the free infrastructure we provide. It did not work well for our context. Perhaps tertiary education is different in the sense that educators don't donate to supporting the no-cost technologies which enable open collaboration. Not surprising given that educators are not on the list of the top ten jobs ;-) That said, I am grateful that I have found funding sources for to keep WikiEducator operational - In Feb 2016 we've been able to provide free wiki hosting for educators around the world for a decade. 

Crowdfunding works for some projects and not others. A good candidate project for crowdfunding must have an end to it. For example, you can crowdfund producing a course, but you probably should not try to crowdfund your expenses for the third year of running a course. 

 

As a commercial operation I see that you use a CC-BY-NC-SA license. I'm interested to ask, if you are willing to share:

1. As copyright holder, what does NaturalMath.com define as "commercial"?  - in other words, what use of your resources would you consider to be "non-commercial"?

As a side note, I use the term "rights" rather than "copyright" because otherwise people confuse it with the Copyright license. So far, we only told one person to stop using our stuff commercially: a trader who put our book on AliBaba with a fixed price. At the moment, this is the only case we would want to stop because of purely monetary reasons: other people directly reselling materials we produce, without our permission.

1. Why did you choose a NC restriction as a commercial company working as a social enterprise?

As you said earlier, that license is a measure of control. I find that authors, including myself, often feel uncomfortable giving everybody everywhere the license to use their creations every which way. With NC clause, we can stop it if we see someone going severely against our agendas in education. For example, using the materials in situations where children are treated harshly.

It is our way of not supporting what we do not want to support. 

I am not any more suspicious of commercial uses compared to non-commercial. But any substantial endeavor will have some sort of internal economy, so the NC part gives us a say in any substantial use of our materials. 

~~~

There is a bigger issue here, about freedom. There are two sides of freedom: the lack of restraints, and the existence of support.

For example, I want to settle Mars, and I am free to do so (no restraints) but at the same time not free to do so (no support).

I see that many arguments between the points of view Wayne and Stephen represent boil down to the fact that support often comes with restraints.

I said above that for Natural Math, the NC license is a tool for not supporting what we do not want to support. That is morally different from creating restraints. I don't want to create restraints. But in my area of work (which is not about the immediate basic needs like food, water, and shelter), I feel good about not providing support to absolutely everyone who wants it.

For example, one group of Natural Math people is now developing a book and a course with the working title "Calculus for Five Year Olds." I do think calculus is super-important, but I do not consider it a life-and-death basic need. We would not want the book to become entangled with compulsory education, state-mandated tests, or anything else that would pressure children in harsh ways. I've seen math curriculum developers cry over all the hurt their creations inflict on students. So, the NC license can theoretically helps us to avoid that.

I want to be very peaceful, so I would not make any moves against any educational practices. At the same time, there are some that don't get my support. 

1. Has your company incorporated any CC-BY or public domain resources and re-licensed derivative works as CC-BY-NC-SA?

We try to stay within fair use or ask for permission to use, irregardless of the license. 

[Ebba Ossiannilsson]

I really love agree with this aproach Waine

"How do you achieve sustainable OER projects? ---> How will institutions remain sustainable without OER? "

This is the way forward....

Ebba Ossiannilsson

PhD, EDEN Fellow, e-learning expert

Lund University Sweden 

[Stephen Downes]

Wayne asked,

 

> As a philosopher - which freedoms do you consider to be more important?

 

All rights, and all freedoms, are balanced against each other, and this balance varies by context, which involves considering the interests of those involved, the value generated and the harm caused, with respect to both individual and social goods.

 

For any freedom, there is an exception to that freedom, for example, when the harm caused is greater than the value gained.

 

We are all familiar with the cases where our rights are not absolute and where our freedoms may be constrained:

 

- yes, a person has the right to freedom of speech, but not to the commission of speech acts that cause harm (such as yelling ‘fire!’ when there is no fire)

 

- yes, a person has a right to make a living, but not by kidnapping children and extorting money.

 

Some people argue that if there is any restriction on what you can do with a resource, it is therefore “not free”. But there is no freedom which is defined in this way. All freedoms come with restrictions, because the rights and freedoms of different people collide.

 

> The freedom of individuals to use open resources as they wish or the freedoms of the creators of those resources to determine how they should be used? 

 

Neither of these are ‘freedoms’ – here’s my revised characterization:

 

- Your freedom to charge money for a resource here and now inhibits my freedom to access this resource here and now.

-  Your freedom to access this resource here and now inhibits my freedom to charge money for a resource here and now.

 

That is why we have two distinct accounts of freedom, and why both are equally a definition of ‘free resources’. Both freedoms are important. Neither one is always right.

 

My argument is, and always has been, that a person’s right to access an educational resource is just as important as a person’s right to make a living charging money for resources. It means that sometimes the definition of a ‘free resource’ means that people have to give up the right to make money off the resource. They do not become ‘less free’ as a result, no more than a person becomes ‘less free’ because he is not allowed to set up a private toll booth on the road.

 

> For clarification - do you mean unrepentant in the sense of "showing no regret for one's wrongdoings"? 

 

Yes. ;)

 

-- Stephen

 

 

 

 

From: OE...@googlegroups.com [mailto:OE...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Mackintosh
Sent: May-19-15 8:59 AM
To: OE...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [OERU] "Is the ‘closed’ mindset of the Open Educational Resources community its own worst enemy?"

 

Hi Stephen,

[Dr. Nellie Muller Deutsch]

Maybe Tony Bates' new book can shed some light on OER: http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Thank you. 

Warm wishes,

Dr. Nellie Deutsch
Educational Technology & Leadership
About Me

1-647-694-0183

Teach @ WizIQ

To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Drop by drop the bucket is filled, moment by moment awareness is developed ~ Unknown

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Stephen,

Had a good chuckle. My request for absolution failed. It seems I have fewer freedoms for my wrongdoings ;-).

I agree with your exposition that all rights and freedoms are balanced against each other but that they vary by context.  I also agree that the right to access an educational resource is equally important as a person's right to earn a living. 

I don't think debates about absolute degrees of freedom when comparing license types are that productive, other than gaining a better understanding of the different contexts of openness under which we operate. Legal licenses are a poor mechanism to "regulate" intent. I suspect that someone intent on breaching copyright will do so irrespective of the license type. 

In our case at the OERF,  the practice of our copyright holders to grant others the rights to charge money does not restrict the freedom to access the resource here and now. This is because learners will always have access to the original version of the resources we host on our infrastructure. A corporate could make a copy and lock this down behind password, and charge for value additions which seems reasonable. I don't think there is a sustainable market for locking down exact replicas of our content when there will always be a version available at no cost with permissive permissions. 

Perhaps the OERF is unique because we are committed to open file formats and we only use open source software infrastructure which can be replicated by anyone. Our community values do not permit commercial advertising on the WikiEducator site. These principles of openness are embedded in the constitution of the organisation. 

I also agree that adding restrictions do not necessarily make a resource non-free. So for example, I feel that the copyleft provision is warranted in circumstances where its important to perpetuate the future "freedom" of the resource. For instance, I frequently develop funding proposals openly using free content licenses. In this scenario, I typically include the SA provision. If someone can succeed in gaining funding based on implementing our ideas faster and of better quality than we are able to do, and there is a requirement to share back the outputs with the community, that's healthy for the open ecosystem. Moreover, developing openly and transparently there will be a digital history of the integrity and origins of the ideas - if that's important for individuals. 

For us at the OERF, the NC clause restricts activities we want to encourage, for instance lowering the friction and transaction costs for remix.   

Wayne

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Maria,

That's good advice for crowdfunding, specifically that it must be focused on projects which have an end. 

I'm contemplating a crowdfunding initiative to contribute to the completion of a few mOOCs for a general education 1st year of study at the OERu. Our rate of product development towards a coherent programme of study is frustrating slow, and perhaps with a little funding support we can outsource the assembly of a few open courses based on open textbooks which are mapped to formal academic credit at our partner institutions to speed up product development.  However, as you point out the marketing piece is important and we're a little thin on professional marketing expertise so I hope to get those gaps filled before we attempt a crowdfunding initiative. 

I was chuffed by your emphasis on rights. After all, copyright is about your rights to copy!  

I see your intentions with the use the NC restriction for delimiting those activities which your organisation will support. Thanks for sharing.

W

   

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "OER university" group.
To post to this group, send email to oer-uni...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
oer-universit...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/oer-university?hl=en?hl=en
Visit the OER univeristy page on http://wikieducator.org/OER_university

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OERu" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to OERu+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Maria Droujkova]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <mackinto...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Maria,

That's good advice for crowdfunding, specifically that it must be focused on projects which have an end. 

I'm contemplating a crowdfunding initiative to contribute to the completion of a few mOOCs for a general education 1st year of study at the OERu.

When the time comes, let me know if you want more pointers. For example, crowdfunding is less about funds and more about crowds (social media marketing). I've also saved very good mentoring and best-practice materials from the now-closed educational crowdfunding site IncitED, and have their permission to share. 

 

I was chuffed by your emphasis on rights. After all, copyright is about your rights to copy!  

I am familiar with this usage and I like it fine myself. This is not a big philosophical issue for me, it's purely about explaining things to people as efficiently as possible. When I say "copyright" most people assume it's the type of license with the letter C in a circle, rather than "the right to copy" - and then I have to spend time clarifying the semantics and reminding people - "no, no, copyright, not Copyright (C)" and so on. It's easier not to go there.  

I save most of my new word and new meaning cards for mathematical terminology :-)

Cheers,
Dr. Maria Droujkova

NaturalMath.com
919-388-1721

-.-. --- --- .-..

 

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Maria,

Thanks for your generous offer to advise on crowdfunding - I will definitely reach out for guidance when the time comes.

W

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "OER university" group.
To post to this group, send email to oer-uni...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
oer-universit...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/oer-university?hl=en?hl=en
Visit the OER univeristy page on http://wikieducator.org/OER_university

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OERu" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to OERu+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.