another text on OER, but not an OER!!

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Leigh Blackall

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 6:29:36 PM9/17/08
to WikiEducator
MIT keep missing the issue with their licenses! http://mitpress.mit.edu/opening_up_education/

--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com

Randy Fisher

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 7:19:32 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
How ironic!

Someone should write an opinion piece in a highly regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and some might say, hypocrisy.

- Randy
--
________________
Randy Fisher - Change Management, Human Performance & Organizational Transformation

* Engaging People in Teams, Communities and Organizations....and WikiEducator!

+ 1 604.684.2275
wiki...@gmail.com

http://www.wikieducator.org
http://www.wikieductator.org/Community_Media
http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Randyfisher
http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Wikirandy/Todo

* Cool WikiEducator Video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9-CNlIqsY

* Can You Do the Wiki-Wiki? http://www.wikieducator.org/Wiki_Wiki

Skype: wikirandy

Wayne

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 7:24:45 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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.

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.

Cheers
Wayne

Stephen Downes

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 7:30:30 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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.

I'm just guessing, though.

-- Stephen

Wayne

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 7:33:44 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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 :-)

Cheers
Wayne

Leigh Blackall

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 7:34:33 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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

Wayne

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 7:40:55 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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

Leigh Blackall

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 8:13:52 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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..

Wayne Mackintosh

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 9:48:43 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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.

Kim Tucker's essay "Say Libre"

http://www.wikieducator.org/Say_Libre

and corresponding work on the "Libre knowledge" definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_knowledge

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.

See: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

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:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

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
> http://learnonline.wordpress.com<http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?5AQsFELcEICSnzhO-qejhOqenPo0c_Zz2I3Vg_z5oEbh-BendTV4sUMqehPP3bVKVIz4xlK5LbIAVb5z3uXKyc2cOFeFcwY7KxXc731qoueecaXoHa4WQ9DmGvM0454qR8D-hzlJqDbCTzhOepdEFFEK6zBxwQsLCTT3pFr0mhmgQwTrpRyqnjh02_id46MHcDYjh1fM-pEwH0Qg1wq1o1Cy0wTcQggHcQgr0Qg1wq1pExd49KvxYYmfSk3q9J4SOYqenPhOUYqejuDDQ>
winmail.dat

Leigh Blackall

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 10:09:53 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
o oh.. I can feel us going back into that largely unresolved battle we had last year.
http://wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall/Open_educational_resources_and_practices#Copyright

I think my words from last year address some of my issues that still stand... but specifically to moral tone, in the preamble is this:

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?

Brent

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 10:16:44 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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.
--
--------------------------------------
http://digitalsynapse.co.nz
--------------------------------------

Erik Moeller

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 10:45:31 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
The wording today was introduced here:

http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2254&oldid=2251

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

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

Leigh Blackall

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 10:51:12 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Erik, there was already a discussion about this, but no action: http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Definition#.22god-like_creators.22.3F

Erik Moeller

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 11:03:31 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to
the definition to participate:

http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Definition#Preamble_for_1.1

Wayne Mackintosh

unread,
Sep 17, 2008, 11:43:02 PM9/17/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Hi Leigh,

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 :-).

Great posts.

Cheers
Wayne








-----Original Message-----
From: wikied...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 7:09 PM
To: wikied...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!

o oh.. I can feel us going back into that largely unresolved battle we had
last year.
http://wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall/Open_educational_resources_and_practices#Copyright

I think my words from last year address some of my issues that still
stand... but specifically to moral tone, in the
preamble<http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition&oldid=2868>is
this:

*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. *
winmail.dat

Wayne Mackintosh

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 12:05:08 AM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Erik,

I've posted some feedback on the preamble here:

http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Definition#Preamble_for_1.1

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: wikied...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM
To: wikied...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!


winmail.dat

Leigh Blackall

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 12:35:23 AM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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.

Well, mine may not be highly regarded but it is read by 3000 people a month. (scarey I know!) When is an OER not an OER?

Wayne Mackintosh

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 1:06:25 AM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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: wikied...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM
To: wikied...@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.


Well, mine may not be highly regarded but it is read by 3000 people a month.
(scarey I know!) When is an OER not an
OER?<http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/whens-an-oer-not-an-oer/>
winmail.dat

Leigh Blackall

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 1:36:56 AM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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...?

Wayne Mackintosh

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 1:53:00 AM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Good question,

I'd suggest posting that on the freedomdefined site and lets see how they respond.
winmail.dat

Wong Leo

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 2:37:44 AM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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 <WMack...@col.org>

Peter

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 3:34:48 AM9/18/08
to WikiEducator
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:
> 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: wikied...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
> > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM
> > To: wikied...@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
> > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <WMackint...@col.org

Leigh Blackall

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 4:19:11 AM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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?

Wong Leo

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 4:43:59 AM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
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

best

Leo

2008/9/18 Leigh Blackall <leighb...@gmail.com>

Leigh Blackall

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 6:53:46 AM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Its really nothing special Leo.. you're probably expecting better :)

When's an OER not an OER?

September 18, 2008 in Uncategorized

When MIT publish one it seems.

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

Anil

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 12:03:43 PM9/18/08
to WikiEducator
You are absolutely right Dr.Wayne.
What would have been the destiny of man if pattent laws where in force
in the present form a thousand years before!

Anil
> >              +64...       
> > skype - leigh_blackall
> > SL - Leroy Goalpost
> >http://learnonline.wordpress.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Anil

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 12:07:19 PM9/18/08
to WikiEducator
You are absolutely right Dr.Wayne.
What would have been the destiny of man if pattent & license laws
where in force in the present form a thousand years before!

Anil

On Sep 18, 4:24 am, Wayne <wmackint...@col.org> wrote:
> >              +64...       
> > skype - leigh_blackall
> > SL - Leroy Goalpost

Wong Leo

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 9:00:01 PM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
it prevents by way of stating a principle, oganisations cashing in on the hard work of OER campaigners.

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

TKS

Wong Leo

unread,
Sep 18, 2008, 10:04:03 PM9/18/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
done http://www.yeeyan.com/articles/view/14239/14259

It has so far 14 readers now in last 1 min .hope it will attract more attention .



2008/9/19 Wong Leo <leol...@gmail.com>

Alex P. Real

unread,
Sep 19, 2008, 4:30:36 AM9/19/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com

Hi Leo,

 

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.

 

Cheers,

 

Alex

 

 

 

De: wikied...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wikied...@googlegroups.com] En nombre de Wong Leo
Enviado el: viernes, 19 de septiembre de 2008 3:00
Para: wikied...@googlegroups.com
Asunto: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!

 

it prevents by way of stating a principle, oganisations cashing in on the hard work of OER campaigners.

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

TKS

Leo

2008/9/18 Leigh Blackall <leighb...@gmail.com>

Its really nothing special Leo.. you're probably expecting better :)

When's an OER not an OER?

September 18, 2008 in Uncategorized

¡Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.When MIT publish one it seems.

Wong Leo

unread,
Sep 19, 2008, 9:17:09 PM9/19/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com


2008/9/19 Alex P. Real <alex....@googlemail.com>

Hi Leo

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.

Hey AP

First first of all , Happy Birthday !! in China , if you are having birthday , you need to eat noodles which means you can live longer so try to eat some :) but I am sure you are healthy

First of all , the WE , if you put The W upside down , you will get ME :)

When I go to eat my lunch everyday I will see the sign WE infront of the cafe near the dorm in my school area in Suzhou where I am :)

my questions is What is Pure form of OER ? I have come across a educator here are really advocating OER , she has a wiki , and I registed on her wiki , and doing something for my own class on my User page , something to do with my major ( Psychology ) and she send me a message and told me to stop messing around there ,and told me I am not welcomed there , I was asking Leigh this also , he told me although she own the wiki( pay for the domain etc ) but she doesnot own the content .

and then some of other so called Open projects here in China , when I said something from my own perspecitive , if it doesnot fit into their "value " , and then I will soon kicked out .or noone pay attention to my voice there .

Instead I feel connected and being respected in TALO or WE , people like you and Leigh respect who I am , where I come from , they support the WE to support Chinese and any other languages in the world , those are maybe nothing to them ,but I feel like this is the real "Openess " and free soul to me .

In Chinese there is a story about Dragon , which said , there was a man who told everyone he really like Dragon , and want to be friend with drgaon , but one day The dragon came to his house ,and he was so afraid that he hided himself and don't want to meet the dragon .

I think many of people like this man , Open is not what you say , but what you do

tks again Happy B day

Leo

Brent

unread,
Sep 19, 2008, 9:40:23 PM9/19/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
offtopic slightly ... but there's an inspirational interview with Leo and Alexander Hayes that you can check out here for a bit of context:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=flnw08

brent.

Leigh Blackall

unread,
Sep 21, 2008, 4:18:39 AM9/21/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Hi Leo, just back from a little trip to the mountains... now climbing a mountain of email!

Your question about: it prevents by way of stating a principle, oganisations cashing in on the hard work of OER campaigners.

"it" is the Free Cultural Works Definition (FCWD). It is perhaps the only document at the moment that is useful for distnguishing what IS free and open and what is not. MIT's Open Courseware are not free cultural works under that definition. So, the FCWD is a statement of principle, that you and I will find increasingly useful in exposing what is not actually free and open.

Erik Moeller

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 9:06:35 PM9/26/08
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
FYI, the definition should now be updated as per the discussion we've
had here and on the wiki:

http://freedomdefined.org/Definition

HTH,
Erik

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages