http://wiki.freeculture.org/FCX/Unconference/Google_eating_or_providing_University_services
will add more later. i encourage other attendees to do so as well. > Hey Alex, > > Alex Kozak <[email protected]> writes: > >> I'd love to have a conversation about this at the conference... would be >> interesting to hear everyone's perspective. I think this is a great >> debate >> to have. >> > > Unfortunately I missed the conference this year. Did any conversation > about it happen? > >> John you know I agree with the ideals of free software, but I think I >> have a >> more pragmatic view when it comes to Google. Does the increased risk to >> "corporate interference" and reduced autonomy outweigh the potential >> benefits of these technologies? For a school without any collaboration >> systems, and little capacity to deploy one, the Google option would >> clearly >> be a net win for education and the university's mission to educate. And >> it >> would be a win for free culture in that the capabilities for >> collaboration >> and learning presented by the internet are being harnessed by the >> institutions who could most benefit from their use. >> > > I understand the appeal of this argument, but it accepts the status quo > as a given, ignoring the leadership role that universities have > (imperfectly) had, and what they are capable of. The university has the > choice to either be part of the demand for freedom or to instead support > lack of freedom and expect someone else to take the leadership role. I > sure am glad universities continued the growth of the Internet and > standardized email instead of going the direction of private AOL-like > networks. > > As Asheesh points out, to require Google Services is to require student > and faculty disclosure of their academic work and communications to both > the government and a corporation. This does strike me as a much more > sinister kind of corporate interference than hanging sponsorship banners > up in the student union or the like. It also means relying on code that > no one at the university has ever seen, so it means simply trusting a > corporation to do the right thing. > > I think your way of framing this also creates a much wider technology > gap than there is. Google services obviously have features that add > appeal, but let's be honest about what the actual damage to the > university's mission from not making their use *mandatory* is, and let's > also remember that the largest successful collaborative writing and > research project in history is run using exclusively free software... > >> I definitely agree that other things being equal a floss solution is >> preferable over Google. And think it's even inevitable that free >> software >> will compete with Google apps-like services. But in the meantime should >> schools not be encouraging the use of new technology until the floss >> solution is as optimal as Google? >> > > There's no "in the meantime" in the current way these decisions are > being made -- to adopt Google services is to actively undercut and work > against the demand for free software solutions (which may or may not be > services in the traditional sense). Universities are large and slow. If > they change to Google now, they aren't going to want to change again to > a free software system in 3 years, even if an awesome one does exist. > > We also can't impose the "in the meantime" rationale we wish were there > on the decision -- when the decision is made based on cost, that's the > rationale -- not this desire you're expressing to benefit collaborative > or free culture projects. Failing to oppose a decision made on a poor > rationale simply because an alternate rationale could justify it better > is a dangerous path to take. When a decision is at best pro-free-culture > because of incidental side effects, that's a deceptive and often harmful > kind of win. > > If universities were *actually* saying, "We're going to use Google > services now, because we need that functionality to support > collaboration, but we'll continue to support development of free > software alternatives with an eye toward re-acquiring our academic > independence in 2015," then this would be a much different discussion. > > From what I've seen, that's not what they're saying. What they're saying > is more akin to, "It's cheaper, and software is just part of the > infrastructure, like the air conditioning, and Google is popular." > That's not something we should be okay with. > > -- > -John Sullivan > -http://wjsullivan.net > -GPG Key: AE8600B6 > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
