Open, Free, Libre?

David Wiley 2008

It must be very satisfying to know that you took a significant first step and made a difference to the discourse around education and the sharing of resources. Despite David's modest presentation of his coining of the term "OpenContent" and the launch of the first license and written principles aimed at protecting and sharing academic content (OPL and OP/L), his initiative made a difference.
While he acknowledges the flaws of his initial efforts and the importance of the Creative Commons licenses developed by Larry Lessig and others, he was a leader at a time when many academics were focused on protecting their work, not on sharing it.
I'm still uncertain about the long term effect of supporting open licensing as opposed to free (libre) approaches. While I admire the mavericks of the Free Software Foundation, the supporters of Richard Stallman and open source itself, I'm doubtful that their model will fit the realities that many teachers and students face or the level of interest they have in engaging with the issue. I think that the free radicals (pun intended ;-) have a critical role to play in ensuring that the corporations like Microsoft, Apple, etc. don't end up owning and controlling our use of technologies and increasingly our access to knowledge and sharing of information.
David's description of the limitations (protections?) of open content resonate for me. Although those protections mean that his license doesn't qualify as a "copyleft" license (if I understood that correctly), but I do think it is an approach that acknowledges the concerns of the producers of the educational content - that they have some say in how their work is shared and used. Many academics I've spoken to as I've tried to promote the concept of "open" are willing to support the concept of a "right to education" but they are concerned that their hard work will be misconstrued, misused or appropriated to make someone else richer. CC licenses allow each individual to determine their level of comfort in sharing - they are customizable. The fact that they too have flaws is unfortunate but I have every confidence that we'll eventually get it right. How can we not with all those brilliant minds at Harvard focused on improvement?
Where I have concerns with David's approach is his apparent focus on textbooks. I think the idea that the textbook is too often an excuse for lazy teaching. It seems to encourage (support?) a traditional, lecture-based approach to teaching and an underlying assumptions of a static model of knowledge. In our rapidly changing world, this approach has limited value. It doesn't appeal to students nor does it seem to serve their needs or the needs of the economy or of everyday life. Certainly when I look around to see who is successful in the world, it rarely seems to be persons who rely on textbooks. And the exemplary instructors I've known are the ones out there pushing the envelope, engaging in real world learning and using the power of technologies and connectivities to connect with other experts and learners to grow the shared knowledge around subjects of interest and concern. There are better methods of collecting and sharing information than a textbook and we're starting to see all kinds of good examples. Doesn't mean there is not a role for textbooks; I would predict thought that they'll be increasingly unimportant in the future of education. P.S. David recently participated in the Change MOOC that Stephen Downes and George Siemens have been organizing. He posted a brief description with some additional links to open projects he's participated in - About David

The notion of value..

     As we in Canada are yet again awaiting the final outcome of renewed attempts to amend our Copyright Act, the subject of licensing and the optimal term of copyright seem very appropriate. But I think it may be only relevant to me (and perhaps other Canadians?).
     I thought when I started this Introduction to Openness in Education course late that I would find my blogging attempts resounding in a big emptiness as the conversation amongst the other bloggers in this course would have moved on. Sigh...Well, I think I need to get my reflections down (or is it up?) before I move on and forget them. I'll go trolling through other blogs later.
     It has been good to review the arguments about optimal length of copyright terms and to reflect on the purpose of copyright and who benefits and who should benefit in terms of our society and in terms of the rights of an individual.
     Watching Larry Lessig's presentation at TEDxNYED was a great start but it actually got me thinking about the impact of new forms of communication, new media and social interactions more than it got me thinking about license terms! I have copious notes and I am planning to go back and explore Julian Sanchez and the Cato Institute (whom I had never heard of before - my new media guy was Henry Jenkins of MIT fame)
     If Larry was trying to demonstrate the value to the public of open content, his choice of mashups didn't really convince me. Although entertaining and sometimes revealing, these kinds of videos don't really serve to convince me that copyright shouldn't be extended. What I think they demonstrate is the value of play and the need for people to be able to grab short pieces of music, writing, video to create something new. Whether that use precludes a creator being able to pass the value of his/her creation on to their children or family to benefit from is another point.
His four core values:

• freedom
• community
• limit regulation
• respect the creator

are useful as broad guidelines but it's in the practical realization of these values that are the devil to puzzle out. I believe in freedom with responsibility, community with a respect for individual rights, minimal regulation but meaningful enforcement, and a respect for the creator with a recognition that no one creates alone - we all build on what others have done and usually supported by those around us.
     I reviewed the Creative Commons licenses and played the game (which I really like as a teaching aid - will try to incorporate that when I talk about open content to my teachers - better check the CC license eh?). I've loved CC licenses since I first heard about them in 2004. I, along with many other teachers, have struggled with interesting content I've found on the Internet - who owns it? If I just use a little bit of it, is that OK? If a person put this content up and didn't tell me NOT to use it in education, can I presume that they wanted to share? CC licenses make everything clear (well not everything really but it's a good start). I know who created something and how they will allow it to be used. I have always credited my sources but not always in the exact way they might want to be acknowledged so CC licensing clears that up too. I like the fact that it puts the responsibility for defining rights on the creator, not on a judicial or administrative system.
     I enjoyed Pollock's "Value of the public domain" and "Forever minus a day" in a painful kind of way. I got a little lost in some of his more arcane calculations but found some of his citations and examples very thought-provoking. I'm still not truly convinced we can every accurately assess the potential value or costs of these kinds of decisions - how long to make copyright, how restrictive the terms should be to protect and thus nurture future creativity, to create value to the economy and society and contribute to the public good. For almost every point he made, I could find examples that might demonstrate the opposite of his suppositions.
     I think some form of broader fair use might do more than arguing about the term of copyright. If I create something that generates value, I would like to be able to leave it to my family. Perhaps it would be best to ensure that copyright is held by an individual or family group? It would be up to them to ensure that it continues to create value.
     I see no reason why we couldn't have a system that allows the protection of a unique piece of work from outright copying and reselling but also allows people to create something new with pieces of the original work. I don't really buy the argument that the entire work has to become public domain at some point in time or it will limit creativity? It can inspire and contribute to the public domain if we ensure that copyright holders have to allow some use of it to create something new - not complete copying but some new interpretation of the material. Perhaps a modification of CC-licensing combined with a broadening of fair use would protect the rights of creators and continue to stimulate people's creativity and new creations.