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: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 7:09 PM To: wikieducator@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. * > 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? On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 5:13 PM > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!! > > 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.. > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:34 +1200, Leigh Blackall wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Downes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Leigh Blackall > > +64(0)21736539 > > skype - leigh_blackall > > SL - Leroy Goalpost > > http://learnonline.wordpress.com< > http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?5AQsFELcEICSnzhO-qejhOqenPo0c_Zz2I3Vg_z5oEbh-BendTV4sUMqehPP3bVKVIz4xlK5LbIAVb5z3uXKyc2cOFeFcwY7KxXc731qoueecaXoHa4WQ9DmGvM0454qR8D-hzlJqDbCTzhOepdEFFEK6zBxwQsLCTT3pFr0mhmgQwTrpRyqnjh02_id46MHcDYjh1fM-pEwH0Qg1wq1o1Cy0wTcQggHcQgr0Qg1wq1pExd49KvxYYmfSk3q9J4SOYqenPhOUYqejuDDQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > Leigh Blackall > +64(0)21736539 > skype - leigh_blackall > SL - Leroy Goalpost > http://learnonline.wordpress.com > > > > > > > -- -- Leigh Blackall +64(0)21736539 skype - leigh_blackall SL - Leroy Goalpost http://learnonline.wordpress.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
<<inline: winmail.dat>>
