[WikiEducator] Re: MIT, Elsevier Offer Free Content From MoreThan 2,000 Journals
Hi Stephen, Leo and friends. Stephen is an international icon in the world of digital learning and is an exemplary advocate for free software in education. Without getting into the rhetoric of free versus libre, Stephen makes a compelling argument but the NC restriction is not supported by the WikiEducator community. Apology for the long email -- but this relates to a core value of our community project. WikiEducator subscribes to the Free Cultural Works Definition with regards to our interpretation of the meaning of free content. (http://freedomdefined.org/Definition ) -- this covers the generic freedoms derived from the free software movement, for convenience listed here: * The freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it * The freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it * The freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression * The freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works However in addition to these requirements the WikiEducator community, through the free cultural works definition specifies a number of additional requirements (these are not optional) in our community. Again, I quote from the free content definition: In order to be considered free, a work must be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status must provide the same essential freedoms enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free: * Availability of source data: Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. * Use of a free format: For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy must be available for the work to be considered free. * No technical restrictions: The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above. * No other restrictions or limitations: The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work. Consequently you cannot upload proprietary formats on WIkiEducator. Try uploading an MSWord document or Powerpoint smile. We believe that legally the SA provisions are strong enough to protect against commercial exploitation. For instance, should a publishing company want to user and publish the OER Handbook currently under development in WE, and they want to add an additional chapter or translate the work -- there is a legal requirement to release the derivative works under the same conditions they received the originals -- including the requirement of free formats etc. In the real world -- I guess this will be difficult to police and monitor. However, the same holds true for NC content that is use inappropriately by commercial exploiters. The WIkiEducator supports both the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (The Share Alike is our default unless specified by the author at the onset of a project.) WE do not support the non-commercial restriction for two reasons: * It does not meet the requirements of the Free Cultural Works definition as the right to sell a compilation is deemed a restriction of essential freedoms; * WE has a strong focus on the development agenda, in particular the first Millennium Development Goal associated with the eradication of abject poverty. Simply stated WE do not wish to deny the rights of individuals to earn a living (See: http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:M_and_E_Overview ) and this is communicated as a value by not entertaining the NC restriction. Our approach is to open up and encourage wide distribution of free content through multiple distribution channels -- even if that means some people earn a living by doing
[WikiEducator] Re: MIT, Elsevier Offer Free Content From MoreThan 2,000 Journals
Hiya, I understand that WikiEducator has made the decision it has for whatever reasons it has. And there's no need to get into the mechanics of how the decision was made, or why. But... In order to be considered free, a work /must/ be covered by a Free Culture License WikiEducator does not own the word free. A statement such as the one above must be qualified: In order to be considered 'free' by WikiEducator, a work /must/ be covered by a Free Culture License... Otherwise, a claim is being made that extends beyond the bounds of WikiEducator, where WikiEducator's decision-making process no longer applies, and where there is not agreement on this issue. -- Stephen --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator group. To visit wikieducator, go to: http://www.wikieducator.org To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[WikiEducator] Re: MIT, Elsevier Offer Free Content From MoreThan 2,000 Journals
Stephen is an international icon in the world of digital learning and is an exemplary advocate for free software in education. I think he supports open access and perhaps open source and freebie software. Free software is a matter of freedom not price. Warm regards Chris On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Wayne Mackintosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Stephen, Leo and friends. Stephen is an international icon in the world of digital learning and is an exemplary advocate for free software in education. Without getting into the rhetoric of free versus libre, Stephen makes a compelling argument but the NC restriction is not supported by the WikiEducator community. Apology for the long email -- but this relates to a core value of our community project. WikiEducator subscribes to the Free Cultural Works Definition with regards to our interpretation of the meaning of free content. ( http://freedomdefined.org/Definition ) -- this covers the generic freedoms derived from the free software movement, for convenience listed here: - The *freedom to use* the work and enjoy the benefits of using it - The *freedom to study* the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it - The *freedom to make and redistribute copies*, in whole or in part, of the information or expression - The *freedom to make changes and improvements*, and to distribute derivative works However in addition to these requirements the WikiEducator community, through the free cultural works definition specifies a number of additional requirements (these are not optional) in our community. Again, I quote from the free content definition: In order to be considered free, a work *must* be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status *must* provide the same *essential freedoms*enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free: - *Availability of source data:* Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. - *Use of a free format:* For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy *must* be available for the work to be considered free. - *No technical restrictions:* The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above. - *No other restrictions or limitations:* The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work. Consequently you cannot upload proprietary formats on WIkiEducator. Try uploading an MSWord document or Powerpoint smile. We believe that legally the SA provisions are strong enough to protect against commercial exploitation. For instance, should a publishing company want to user and publish the OER Handbook currently under development in WE, and they want to add an additional chapter or translate the work -- there is a legal requirement to release the derivative works under the same conditions they received the originals -- including the requirement of free formats etc. In the real world -- I guess this will be difficult to police and monitor. However, the same holds true for NC content that is use inappropriately by commercial exploiters. The WIkiEducator supports both the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (The Share Alike is our default unless specified by the author at the onset of a project.) WE do not support the non-commercial restriction for two reasons: - It does not meet the requirements of the Free Cultural Works definition as the right to sell a compilation is deemed a restriction of essential freedoms; - WE has a strong focus on the development agenda, in particular the first Millennium Development Goal associated with the eradication of abject poverty. Simply stated WE do not wish to deny the rights of individuals to earn a living (See:
[WikiEducator] Re: MIT, Elsevier Offer Free Content From MoreThan 2,000 Journals
Hi Chris On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 06:18 +1000, Chris Harvey wrote: and indeed, that when materials are used commercially (eg., sold) they are by definition *not* free. You might want to look up the word free in the dictionary. Yip, you right -- the commercial version would not be free of cost however the original version on WE is both free of cost and free as in freedom of speech. As Stephen pointed out -- there are multiple meanings of free -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free Richard Stallman of the free software foundation has written extensively on the meaning of free insofar as free software is concerned -- and WikiEducator derives its meaning of free from these principles. For us this is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of free speech. It's a well documented debated and there is divided opinion in educational circles. Hope this helps. Cheers See for example: http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre or --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator group. To visit wikieducator, go to: http://www.wikieducator.org To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[WikiEducator] Re: MIT, Elsevier Offer Free Content From MoreThan 2,000 Journals
Chris Harvey wrote: I think he supports open access and perhaps open source and freebie software. Free software is a matter of freedom not price. I am well aware of the distinction between 'free as in freedom' and 'free as in beer'. I suppose 'free as in freedom'. My objection to commercial use is that it is a business model supported by *denying* access to resources. If a resource must be purchased before it may be used, then it is not free in either sense. A person does not have the freedom to use, modify, etc., something he or she must buy. I appreciate that many of the other conditions of the free culture license - such as the use of non-proprietary media - serve to mitigate the excesses of commercial sales of open content. My belief is that the full set of such stipulations, crafted so as to close all loopholes, would be tantamount to the 'con-commercial' clause. -- Stephen --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator group. To visit wikieducator, go to: http://www.wikieducator.org To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[WikiEducator] Re: MIT, Elsevier Offer Free Content From MoreThan 2,000 Journals
If a resource must be purchased before it may be used, then it is not free in either sense. A person does not have the freedom to use, modify, etc., something he or she must buy. This is not true, free software is not a campaign against commerce, its a campaign for freedom. Im not less free when I have to pay for a hard copy of wikipedia. I think your really confused about this and it would help if you visit the wiki, at this point I'm starting to wonder if your just trolling us. I own this book http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ , the only way for me to get that book was to buy it. I have the freedom to use, modify, etc Its fairly obvoius why most people use NC license and its really nothing to do with preventing your work from being locked away. I understand you have to make a living but so do we. Regards Chris On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Stephen Downes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Harvey wrote: I think he supports open access and perhaps open source and freebie software. Free software is a matter of freedom not price. I am well aware of the distinction between 'free as in freedom' and 'free as in beer'. I suppose 'free as in freedom'. My objection to commercial use is that it is a business model supported by *denying* access to resources. If a resource must be purchased before it may be used, then it is not free in either sense. A person does not have the freedom to use, modify, etc., something he or she must buy. I appreciate that many of the other conditions of the free culture license - such as the use of non-proprietary media - serve to mitigate the excesses of commercial sales of open content. My belief is that the full set of such stipulations, crafted so as to close all loopholes, would be tantamount to the 'con-commercial' clause. -- Stephen --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator group. To visit wikieducator, go to: http://www.wikieducator.org To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
