Chris, Stephen and WE friends There is an important challenge for both sides of the free cultural works "fence" and that is reality that free content is not free software. In the case of free software the open code is the free software and can be compiled by anyone with the relevant ICT skills.
However, in the case of "compiled" text in the form of book -- it is far easier to "lock" down access. Stephen has used a powerful illustration of how the access to public domain artifacts can be restricted through commercial models. (Sorry, Stephen I don't have the url link -- working from memory here <smile>) Stephen was referring to cultural works of art by the masters which are legally in the public domain to be enjoyed by everyone. Setting aside the issues of the impact of flash lights on art works etc., museums typically sell copyrighted prints and or photos of the artwork with considerable profit margins. The point in this example is that a commercial model is denying access to enjoy something which is in the public domain. Stephen has a valid argument that content is different from software. I also think that we should place the licensing debates in context. Licenses are merely tools and should not be mechanisms to regulate behaviour. WE shares the same intent as Stephen and others i.e. to provide unrestricted access to free content materials. However we have different opinions concerning whether the NC restriction is an effective mechanism to achieve these aims or not. At the end of the day -- If Stephen is the copyright holder of an CC-BY-SA-NC resource -- I can always talk with Stephen about my intentions and how WE manage and promote open access to digital formats and whether he would be prepared to release the resource under CC-BY-SA for WE. Similarly Stephen can chat with me as a copyright holder of a resource I authored in WE under CC-BY-SA and seek my permission for him to release the derivative work under a CC-BY-SA-NC license. The original versions would still be available under their original licences. Time will tell which strategies will achieve the shared intents and beliefs we hold. Ultimately this reduces to a personal choice regarding who's rights and freedoms we choose to uphold. Learners, authors, future authors or the freedoms of the content itself. As an advocate of the freedom culture -- I have an obligation to respect the freedoms of other to choose accordingly. Cheers Wayne Sat, 2008-05-31 at 14:34 +1000, Chris Harvey wrote: > If a resource must be purchased before > it may be used, then it is not free in either sense. A person > does not > have the freedom to use, modify, etc., something he or she > must buy. > > > > This is not true, free software is not a campaign against commerce, > its a campaign for freedom. Im not less free when I have to pay for a > hard copy of wikipedia. I think your really confused about this and it > would help if you visit the wiki, at this point I'm starting to wonder > if your just trolling us. I own this book > http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ , the only way for me to get > that book was to buy it. I have the freedom to use, modify, etc > > Its fairly obvoius why most people use NC license and its really > nothing to do with preventing your work from being locked away. I > understand you have to make a living but so do we. > > Regards > Chris > > > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Stephen Downes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Chris Harvey wrote: > > > > I think he supports open access and perhaps open source and > freebie > > software. Free software is a matter of freedom not price. > > > > > I am well aware of the distinction between 'free as in > freedom' and > 'free as in beer'. I suppose 'free as in freedom'. > > My objection to commercial use is that it is a business model > supported > by *denying* access to resources. If a resource must be > purchased before > it may be used, then it is not free in either sense. A person > does not > have the freedom to use, modify, etc., something he or she > must buy. > > I appreciate that many of the other conditions of the free > culture > license - such as the use of non-proprietary media - serve to > mitigate > the excesses of commercial sales of open content. My belief is > that the > full set of such stipulations, crafted so as to close all > loopholes, > would be tantamount to the 'con-commercial' clause. > > -- Stephen > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
