[Oer-community] On-line education is using a flawed Creative Commons license

[Ilkka Tuomi]

Steve,

My point was that if it is outcome that matters, this is also an empirical
question, not a theoretical one. Basically, we can count the number of
people who have access. This, of course, to a large extent depends on
whether and to what extent the resources are produced. There can be little
"freedom to use" without access.

If the question really is about a more theoretical idea about more or less
"freedom of users," then we have to talk about what such freedom means,
also in conceptual terms. I would then prefer to frame this in the
capability-based context (Sen & Nussbaum).

ilkka


On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Foerster <steve at hiresteve.com> wrote:

> Ilkka wrote:
>
> > I think Wayne's point about MIT OCW was very interesting.
> > From the outcome point of view, the MIT OCW non-commercial
> > restriction has lead to much broader availability and use
> > of the resources that could have been possible without NC.
> > More restricted can sometimes be better if the objective
> > is wide access.
>
> My understanding is not that using the NC restriction made the materials
> more available, it's that faculty members were more inclined to
> contribute materials if they knew the materials would be released with
> the NC restriction.
>
> The end result was still less freedom for users of those materials, but
> it was deemed worth it for the trade off of having more costless
> materials be publicly available than would have been otherwise.
>
> -=Steve=-
>
>
> --
> Stephen H. Foerster
> steve at hiresteve.com
> http://hiresteve.com
> _______________________________________________
> Oer-community mailing list
> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20121130/a36eb95d/attachment.html