> > 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: > 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 this. WE are also committed to widening access to > educational materials in response to MDG 3. In the event that a company > subscribes to practices that are designed to restrict access (eg. bribes, > restraint of trade agreements, exclusive distribution) this could be an > opportunity for another company to open the distribution in competition to > the more closed corporate approach. > > In my view the open approach is likely to be more successful in the long > run -- even if we need to jump over a few hurdles in the early phases of the > OER initiative. > > Stephen -- appreciate your comments on the list. > > Cheers > Wayne > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 11:58 -0300, Stephen Downes wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
