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 wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
