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.
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.
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
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.
September 18, 2008 in Uncategorized
MIT have published a text called 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. Available under a free and practically nonrestrictive license, in both a wiki and a printed and bound text on Lulu.
I like to think that Utah followed Otago Polytechnic's lead when we published Ruth Lawson's Anatomy and Physiology of Animals text on Wikibooks, with lesson plans and activities on Wikieducator, and a printed version on Lulu.com
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 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.
In my books, CC By is the only free license.
PS. It was way back in November 2004 we started to get suspicious of MIT
I’m missing the context so can’t really help L, but I don’t think the distinction is as easy as “real” vs “fake” OER. I guess Leigh refers to the paradox of companies/individuals making selfish profit out of collaborative efforts which seems to relate to “gratis” versus “libre”. We can dislike the use some make of OER, but this seems the core paradox of aiming at “freedom/openness”. If we start to put limits, aren’t we subverting the free movement philosophy? More and more firms are playing with “open” to improve product definition/marketing (e.g. crowdsourcing). Participation and user experience can be appealing but royalties go to the firm.
OER translates differently across languages and cultures so you can’t really expect that Chinese educators adopt a “pure” form. Many worldwide (most?) cut & paste from others as if in a race to “own” and don’t give back for selfishness (“good these fools do, but I´m too witty to share”),fear of plagiarism and else, the original-copy dilemma. At the same time these are the people making “open” increase visibility.
It’s the sum of nobodies that makes this work, Leo.
it prevents by
way of stating a principle, oganisations cashing in on the hard work of OER
Hey Leigh , I am translating now , but Not sure what you mean by saying the above ,
The reason I seemingly make a little bit big of your articles is coz Some of educator in China are doing the similar thing now , publishing , doing something so called " OER "but really are NOT ,
If WE can support Chinese in the future , I do hope that WE can use its platform to help China to publish more of really OER work at this platform ,instead of some Fake ones
again , I am just nobody ,
if possible could you send the Suspicious on MIT that article also , so I can get your background
OER translates differently across languages and cultures so you can't really expect that Chinese educators adopt a "pure" form. Many worldwide (most?) cut & paste from others as if in a race to "own" and don't give back for selfishness ("good these fools do, but I´m too witty to share"),fear of plagiarism and else, the original-copy dilemma. At the same time these are the people making "open" increase visibility.