[od-discuss] Fwd: [Open-education] Refining the Definition of “Open” in Open Content

[Rob Myers]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/08/14 01:50 PM, Baden Appleyard wrote:
> 
> http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3442
> 
> David argues against non-commericial licences

Good. :-)

> and share alike licences.

The false dichotomy continues.

FTA:

"Wikipedia, one of the most important collections of open content,
requires all derivative works to adopt a specific license. While they
clearly believe this additional requirement promotes their particular
use case, it makes Wikipedia content incompatible with content from
other important open content collections, such as MIT OpenCourseWare."

No, MIT OpenCourseWare being proprietary (NC) makes it incompatible
with Wikipedia as Aaron Wolf points out in the comments.

- From the response to Wolf's comments:

"There is a very vocal pro-NC community, just as there is a very vocal
pro-SA community. The definition of open doesn't pass judgment on
either community's position, it simply makes the point that both
clauses place restrictions on users."

Which definition of "open" has Wiley misunderstood so badly?

And why?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT4ZfNAAoJECciMUAZd2dZkLMH/0NWylKT1pYfDpwBqzkXA1p5
cLVr28euV4px9TmHm6CYNQqlYvol/fd/RmcorlE7JL6sXLvX6mA8tA/gazXYsv5i
rIjTGAOQ8e2qYqmmAzy79YKftEPGqoSx3LXog1Gb85+9rlE++k7A2YYOgEFkD1+W
X2SsBV1pMupkkLc4IUaxpoxfy05589FWXIzVtrw01eVLl4LsIazs4XMyJJJt7gEc
K0Fo51D4nTjFo964TLErRltcF+lF76PlyQIZz1rA6E2ab8yi9E8o4fvEiURc7JBK
/Ww1CrI03SpRA28IS0jX+wDcEnk7fRDrmjNewkHno3qpv5T2fBwVjOTdBdEmgT4=
=H5C2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----