Tks a lot Stephen , it takes me abt one hour to read your post <smile>, can I jump to this conclusion ?
*Knowledge itself is open ,but Education canot be Free and should not be free ? * Now I think I get a better understanding , abt these confusing things , I have sent mails to ask about the OOPS in taiwan about their licences issue another question also concern about the translation , I hope I undestand your explanation ( not length at all ) , I think what you meant was saying , MIT is trying to make the real free content by using NC license ,am I right ? and OOPS is also doing the basic same thing plus the translation coz not everyone in China can read Chinese but I am sorry I am trying to give a critical thought from a perspective of Chinese teacher : 1 The teaching should happen in the classroom interaction between teachers and students I watched some of MIT course ,so would it be okay to say the real learning will not happen when Chinese students sit down in front of their laptop ( they need to pay for the internet access too and most of Chinese University like where I am Soochow Univeristy <http://suda.edu.cn> we have a special network which block the OOPS or MIT course for sure and for years , not to mention this ,but the real learning will not happen in the process of watching a video or listen to the podcast 2 I guess to my humble understanding the MIT is trying to use this course like a *"ware"* to motivate the teachers in MIT to become more open or to learn to how to do things correctly , Tschinghua Univeisty ( Top China school ) is also trying to do this copy the idea . 3 that is why I think WE is doing something really amazing is to creat a talking platform here to facilitate the conversation between teachers ( maybe students ) I as a teacher in China although I don't have the chance to meet Leigh or Wayne or James( my idol ) I can still feel the pain or struggle they are facing when they are creating the course on wikieducator .and I began to translate their tutorial now in my own wiki site !! I see this is the Open education .in Chinese we have a saying , to teach other people how to fish is much better than giving people the fish , can we say MIT or OOPS is giving away people the fish but not the way to catch the fish <smile> more later Leo Ps I have read a post at http://connectivism.ca/blog/2008/04/open_educational_resources_fur.html ( sorry could not read the comments if there are any only read it from my Chinese RSS reader ) thought it might be intersting to some of you : 'quote this "I* ve heard of Chinese students translating entire MIT courses into Chinese. How common is this? What is the impact of these courses? Why are students taking them? For personal interest or part of an academic program? And how will we sustain these initiatives? We need more research on the actual impact. BTW, I do like cute kittens.*** 2008/5/30 Stephen Downes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hiya > > Just as an addendum, since you ask, > > Still not sure I understand the meaning of NC , and why NC is not good for > free content ? > > This is a good example of why, in my view, the NC license is more 'free' > for content. > > Suppose OCW is licensed to allow commercial use. Some company comes along > and spends a lot of money to translate the materials into Chinese. Then, in > order to recover their investment, they sell the materials in China. > > The result? > > - this remains the only translation into Chinese, since people say there is > 'no point' translating the materials a second time > - hence, for Chinese speakers, the *only* access to these materials is > through purchase > > I would add that if there is any danger of people producing free Chinese > versions of the materials, such a company would have a significant incentive > to block that effort. Such efforts are blocked in numerous ways: > > - the company will 'lock down' the content it distributed (in., eg., > proprietary formats, such as is used by the Kindle) so people can't simply > copy it > - the company would raise doubts about the quality of the free translation > - the company would obtain exclusive distributorship of the material in > Chinese markets, such as universities > - questions would be raised about the legality of the free translation > - if officials can be bribed, the people doing the free translation can be > harassed or imprisoned > - technical requirements (such as standards compliance, or content > registration, or digital rights enforcement) can be imposed on all content, > which only the commercial company can afford > > I could go on at length. > > The end result is, if content is licensed under 'CC-BY-SA', the result is > inevitably that the majority of people in the world must pay for access to > that content. And that is not what I call 'free'. > > -- Stephen > > > > > Thank you > > Leo > > 2008/5/30 Stephen Downes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Hiya, >> >> > MIT's OCW materials use the NC restriction and therefore do not >> qualify as free content under the free cultural works definition. The >> access may be open -- but they are certainly not free materials :-) >> >> This is written as though it is a simple fait accompli. But there is a >> significant body of opinion (at least, to me) that says that materials may >> be 'free' and licensed as 'n on-commercial' -- and indeed, that when >> materials are used commercially (eg., sold) they are by definition *not* >> free. >> >> -- Stephen >> >> >> Wong Leo wrote: >> >> Dear Wayne , could you please explain to me more about these NC rules I >> am confused >> >> why MIT use it >> >> what is the difference ? >> >> Leo thank you >> >> 2008/4/9 mackiwg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> >>> A quick observation -- >>> >>> MIT's OCW materials use the NC restriction and therefore do not >>> qualify as free content under the free cultural works definition. The >>> access may be open -- but they are certainly not free materials :-) >>> >>> Visit the CC site to see which licenses are approved as free cultural >>> works. >>> >>> Fortunately WE and the Wikimedia foundation projects have been smart >>> enough to use free content licenses! >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Wayne >>> >>> On Mar 30, 5:51 am, James Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > MIT, Elsevier Offer Free Content From More Than 2,000 Journalshttp:// >>> ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/about/media/elsevier_announce/elsevier_... >>> > >>> > CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Mar. 7, 2008 - In a move to encourage open education, >>> > MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) and Elsevier have agreed to make available >>> > figures and text selections from any of Elsevier's more than 2,000 >>> > journal titles for use on OCW. >>> > >>> > As a result of this landmark agreement, select Elsevier content can now >>> > be included within the open access OCW course materials - to be freely >>> > downloaded, used and shared under a Creative Commons license. The >>> > Elsevier content includes up to three figures (including tables and >>> > illustrations) per individual article (or ten per journal volume) and >>> up >>> > to 100 words from a single text extract (or 300 words from a series of >>> > extracts). >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> blog:http://leolaoshi.yo2.cn >> HELP项目https://groups.google.com/group/helpelephantsliveproject >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > blog:http://leolaoshi.yo2.cn > HELP项目https://groups.google.com/group/helpelephantsliveproject > > > > > > -- blog:http://leolaoshi.yo2.cn HELP项目https://groups.google.com/group/helpelephantsliveproject --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
