This is the first of a series being posted this week by David Wiley. He is again discussing the UNESCO OER definition and maintaining his view that it "makes most OER impossible". He argues that the UNESCO definition requires a permission it cannot grant - no-cost access. He also argues that it is missing a permission that needs to be granted - permission to make a copy.
This is David Wiley tying himself in knots for no good reason. The first is essentially the 'non-commercial' clause. If you charge money for it, it's not an OER, and if it's an OER, you can't charge money for it. That's really simple. As for the second, as Wiley himself states, "without permission to make a copy, it is quite impossible to exercise the permissions to adapt, re-use, and redistribute." Well, right. Thus the permissions to adapt, re-use, and redistribute include the right to make a copy. So the right that OER needs is granted, because any other interpretation is nonsense.
Today: 0 Total: 1101 [Direct link] [Share]
