FYI, the definition should now be updated as per the discussion we've
had here and on the wiki:
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
HTH,
Erik
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "WikiEducator" group.
To
Hi Leo, just back from a little trip to the mountains... now climbing a
mountain of email!
Your question about: *it prevents by way of stating a principle,
oganisations cashing in on the hard work of OER campaigners.
*
"it" is the Free Cultural Works Definition (FCWD). It is perhaps the only
docum
offtopic slightly ... but there's an inspirational interview with Leo and
Alexander Hayes that you can check out here for a bit of context:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=flnw08
brent.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Wong Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> 2008/9/19 Alex P. Real <[E
2008/9/19 Alex P. Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi Leo
>
>> OER translates differently across languages and cultures so you can't
>> really expect that Chinese educators adopt a "pure" form. Many worldwide
>> (most?) cut & paste from others as if in a race to "own" and don't give
>> back for selfis
De: wikieducator@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de Wong
Leo
Enviado el: viernes, 19 de septiembre de 2008 3:00
Para: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
Asunto: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
it prevents by way of stating a principle, oganisations cashin
gt;>
>>>>> Dear Leigh ,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to read your post by using google translation now ,even I could
>>>>> not read it by using proxy , butSO I am reading it in Chinese now !
>>>>>
>>>>> remember I was talking
out the dragon story in Chinese , it really
>>>> bring me back to home
>>>>
>>>> If you can ,would you please send me the orignial English version so I
>>>> can read maybe translation it into Chinese and post it on the web somewhere
>>>> so more people can read
You are absolutely right Dr.Wayne.
What would have been the destiny of man if pattent & license laws
where in force in the present form a thousand years before!
Anil
On Sep 18, 4:24 am, Wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
>
> I would love to hear the rationales
You are absolutely right Dr.Wayne.
What would have been the destiny of man if pattent laws where in force
in the present form a thousand years before!
Anil
On Sep 18, 4:24 am, Wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
>
> I would love to hear the rationales from these
it on the web somewhere
>>> so more people can read
>>>
>>> you are amazing
>>>
>>> Leo
>>>
>>> 2008/9/18 Wayne Mackintosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> Good question,
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest posting
estion,
>>>
>>> I'd suggest posting that on the freedomdefined site and lets see how they
>>> respond.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on
hat on the freedomdefined site and lets see how they
>> respond.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
>> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM
>> To: wikie
t; I'd suggest posting that on the freedomdefined site and lets see how they
> > respond.
>
> > Cheers
> > Wayne
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
> > Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM
&
e how they
> respond.
>
> Cheers
> Wayne
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM
> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER
hers take up the
> opportunity in changing the world for the better :-).
>
> Cheers
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM
> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
ging the world for the better :-).
>
> Cheers
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
> Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM
> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another
ups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 9:35 PM
To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and dry
though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's
gt; Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM
> To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER, but not an OER!!
>
>
> I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to
> the definition to participate:
>
> http://freedomdefined.org
lping with contributions to refine the definition.
Here's your opportunity :-)
Cheers
Wayne
-Original Message-
From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Erik Moeller
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 8:03 PM
To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: another text on OER,
/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 wo
I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to
the definition to participate:
http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Definition#Preamble_for_1.1
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
--~--~-
Erik, there was already a discussion about this, but no action:
http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Definition#.22god-like_creators.22.3F
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Erik Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The wording today was introduced here:
>
>
> http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=
The wording today was introduced here:
http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2254&oldid=2251
It's definitely more radical than it needs to be, and I'd be
comfortable with toning it down a bit - Leigh, why don't you start
this discussion on the freedomdefined.org site
is 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
ne 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 behal
-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 fre
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
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 w
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
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 20:30 -0300, Stephen Downes wrote:
> 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.
If I was a betting man -- you'd have my bet :-). Wo
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
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.
Over the last year I have received two invitations to publish research
articles/chapters in special editions dealing with the topic of
How ironic!
Someone should write an opinion piece in a highly regarded publication to
draw attention to the irony, and some might say, hypocrisy.
- Randy
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Leigh Blackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> MIT keep missing the issue with their licenses!
> http://mitpress
33 matches
Mail list logo
