26.1 Evolution to education 3.0  (Page 5/19)

I don’t know about UNESCO, but I can see benefits in streamlining migration of people with skills and qualifications that are internationally recognised. And I see that international recognition possibly developing through collaborative efforts in OER development. What exactly are the absurdities and dubious benefits your are referring to? I think I can agree that accrediting content is a silly idea, but OER could be about much more than just content. As a friend asked me recently, does OER really refer to resources, or is it more accurate to refer to it as Open Education Reform. In that sense, OER would be about much more than content, and all about networked learning, networked teaching, group learning, student exchange programs, teacher exchange programs, and a mashup of short courses offered by a range of people and institutions that could amount to an international degree or other sort of certificate or qualification..

7. derek keats - june 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 am

To try to respond quickly to Wayne MacIntosh first, and for those who have not been part of the “free” or “open” discussion before….

The notion of “open” is borrowed from the concept of “open source”, a software concept that arose mainly out of people not being able to deal with the steadfast focus on Freedom by founder Richard Stallment by some of the original proponents. The notion of “open source” really focuses on business benefit, not on the Freedoms that the software embodies. The “open” of course applies to the source code. In the case of content, that would imply that the original source files used to produce a work are available in their original (ideally open) formats. But of course, in the case of 99% of the content that is supposedly open, this is not the case. If you want to create a derivative work, you often have to re-engineer the raw materials, so they are neither open nor free.

Then there are licenses that restrict the Freedom inherent in the resources, with the NonCommercial restriction being particularly evil in this regard because it creates license incompatibilities that preclude building composite derived works. The issue is not about commercial use, but the fact that if YOU use a NC restriction, it prevents me from including some of your content in my less restrictive works, and PREVENTS the users of MY content from receiving potential benefit from people who may wish to contribute but use the works commercially.

I am opposed to anything that impedes velocity, and the NC restriction and accreditation would both impede velocity. Indeed, if they were applied to software, we would almost certainly have NO Free or Open Source Software today. The only way to overcome this, and still retain velocity, is to pump large volumes of money into it, which is of course what MIT and others have done. But that is not sustainable.

How did UWC succeed with its strategy on Free Courseware and Content? Well, we are an institution which is deeply rooted in the intellectual engagement with the issues of freedom as we were the intellectual home of the struggle for political freedom in South Africa. We understand both the tenets of freedom, and what it is like not to have it (I have my mementos of rubber bullets and teargas cannisters to prove it). As an institution we therefore have deep roots in the key concept of Freedom that most of the Open conversation seems to miss, and be shy to talk about. We are not shy. It is our life blood. Thats why we talk about Free Courseware and Free Content. To be free it must be open, but it can be open without being Free, and that is incompatible with our reason for being as an institution.