Comments on: The SA Fallacy: Open Knowledge Foundation Gets It Wrong

By: Open education: if you can do it, do it | FLOSSE Posse

Open education: if you can do it, do it | FLOSSE Posse — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:26:49 +0000

[...] days ago David Wiley wrote that with the open content the Open Knowledge Foundation gets it wrong when claiming that share-alike licenses are open but non-commercial ones [...]

By: leighblackall

leighblackall — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:05:47 +0000

I share your frustration Dave. The illogical rhetoric of Share Alike 2007

By: Jeremy Browne

Jeremy Browne — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:39:26 +0000

This reminds me of our old argument on interoperability: There are not two licenses at work, but three: The license for Work A, the license for Work B, and the license for the resulting remix. With this in mind,

2. Only content licensed under exactly the same share-alike requirement-bearing license is interoperable.

is false. SA content remixes with PD content just fine; the remixed work just has to be SA.

By: charlie lowe

charlie lowe — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:53:25 +0000

But David, your 2004 definition is quite different from the definition of open content implied by the original OCL and OPL, and so there are two competing ways of looking at open content. In fact, I would suggest that a workable definition of open content has to avoid defining it in terms of interoperability and/or openness of derivative versions. See my recent post stimulated by this conversation.

By: Teemu Leinonen

Teemu Leinonen — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:14:59 +0000

You wrote: “When authors adopt a share-alike license, they are saying: we value the freedom of content over the freedom of people.”

As an author using share-alike license I see this a bit differently. I value the *freedom of mankind*, the common good, over the freedom of content or individuals. you seems to call individuals “people” — that is wrong.

I think that this is the way most SA people see it: When you are given, you should give back, too.

I also do not consider use of SA to be any kind of violation of individual’s rights, because everyone is free to release their own stuff under whatever license.

By: Share-Alike Open, But Not Non-Commercial «

Share-Alike Open, But Not Non-Commercial « — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:34:09 +0000

[...] David Wiley responds. Steve O’Connor on why he choses CC BY. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Limitation of Liability in Creative CommonsDoes Creative Commons Change Education?More on OER Support From Institutions [...]

By: Judy Breck

Judy Breck — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:00:25 +0000

Hi David: For what it is worth, I DO read what you write. I always learn from you — if not always agreeing totally. Since I am not an academic or pedagogue, my views are pretty simple. That does not make me less passionate about the importance of open. You sound like you could use a laugh today. Here is one on the subject of open that arrived recently in my email box. All the best, Judy

IDIOT SIGHTING

When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to pick up our car, we were told the keys had been locked in it. We went to the service department and found a mechanic working feverishly to unlock the driver side door. As I watched from the passenger side, I instinctively tried the door handle and discovered that it was unlocked. ‘Hey,’ I announced to the technician, ‘it’s open!’ His reply: ‘I know. I already got that side.’

Supposedly a true story that happened at the Ford dealership in Canton, MS.