JLynn

My response to "Of Birkenstocks and Wingtips: Open Source Licenses" by P.Gandel and B.Wheeler in EUDCAUSE Review.

Copyrighted content basically clarifies the ownership of the content and requires that any reproduction of the content must be authorized by the holders of the copyright and frequently requires exchange of money. An open source license places the given material in the public domain – for anyone to use and reproduce. However, not all open source licensing is the same. In fact there seems to be two main camps in the open source arena: proponents of copyleft and proponents of the licensing known as open/open.

The article at the heart of this post, "Of Birkenstocks and Wingtips: Open Source Licenses", compares and contrasts these two opensource license models. On the one hand we have copyleft. In it’s discussion of copyleft the GNU.org website states: "To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it…”

The same is can be said about open/open software.

GNU’s description of copyleft goes on to say: “…but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable.”

It’s here that the camps divide. You see, open/open licensing allows users who make modifications, even small ones, to license these ‘new’ materials however they wish. This includes the ability to copyright the ‘new’ code or content if they choose. In this case, materials once available to the community at large may become be lost to proprietary licenses.

Now it’s taken me a long time to sort out my thoughts on this issue. Both sides seem convinced that their license of choice will best promote further development. In truth, I still can’t make heads or tails of the way open/open code (a la http://www.uportal.org/) sustains both its free and its proprietary versions simultaneously. I have, however, solidified my thoughts as they pertain to open source content.

I checked out MITOpenCourseware (OCW) and they seem to share all aspects of these open source courses: the syllabus, calendar, reading list, lecture notes, assignments (sometimes with student responses) and even study materials. Having all of that knowledge vetted for you by top scholars is really pretty amazing. I simply can’t imagine an open/open type model that would make a meaningful contribution to this world knowledge. I can only image that it will effectively cut off these points of knowledge.

What I don’t see at OCW is a means for others to contribute. I have no idea how this would work, but it seems putting out only the original course contents takes us only part way there. Collaboration is integral to the opensource community and integral the development of knowledge.

---

Thinking about the usefulness of collaboration made me think of another site, a cooking site actually. Recipes.com. You can go to the site and find all sorts of highly rated recipes. Making the site (and recipes) better still, are the comments supplied by others who followed recipe. Ingredient substitutions, altering amounts, clarification of the directions – all of these thing make a good recipe even better.

Okay, so I haven't posted this until 11/22. The thing is - 10/12 was actually my first attempt at putting my thoughts down on paper. Guess I'm a bit slow :(

First was the move the Ed School. Then, the change in administration. Next, the new and, ahem, improved VC....

And now it seems, even Centra, our virtual classroom will be changing hands (Thanks to Kevin Kruse at eLearning Guru). Saba will be acquiring Centra. I imagine we won't be seeing any changes this semester (on the user-end) but who knows! Check out the press release for more details.

I came across this article while exploring the web for my Small pieces response.

Michael Gorman, president-elect (probably president by this point) of the American Library Association, wrote Revenge of the Blog People!

Seems like an angry man with an axe to grind. But against bloggers? Kinda strange.

Our latest journal assignment states:

Considering what you already know about using "small pieces loosely joined" - a
common way of describing what the writer of this article is referring to - and
your own time-management skills, reflect on what you think is needed to
effectively conduct a class using "loosely joined" media and programs - and also
while trying to keep up with the pace of knowledge in this field.

The writer referred to is Clark Aldrich and the article is Small Pieces Loosely Joined.

After reading the assignment I dutifully read this short article. Then I went back to the assignment and thought "huh?"

I just didn't get it.

Well, I did have some idea. They're talking about the way we bring pieces (large and small) together to create a whole - a whole that's either strictly defined (tightly joined) or one with ambiguous, evolving boundries (loosely joined). But how did loosely joined pieces of any size relate to time magement?

So I began googling, hoping to read something to inspire an epiphany. I wanted someone to provide me with a clear definition of this term people seemed to be throwing around. I was thrilled when I came across David Weinberger's page: Small Pieces Loosely Joined I looked around the site thinking that he was sure to have a clue what it was all about. Alas, no clear cut definition was to be found... guess he wants me to buy the book.

So after checking out what the web at large had to say, and reading through some of my classmates posts (Splindarella, Between the Pipes.) With the help of everything I read I finally came to a better understanding of Small Pieces Loosely Joined and how, when related to LMSs, it actually does relate to time management. Marc, from Between the Pipes, wrote:

Small pieces are fine as the “why” of the course, but not for the “how.” In
other words, you should not impose how something gets done unless it is an
explicit part of the course. Let students and groups decide to use Wiki’s,
but do not impose them as a document management tool.

I agree with Marc on this point. Instructors shouldn't limit the pieces of technology students can use to fulfill course requirements. By allowing them to explore and make sure of the different technologies students are bound to gravetate toward those technologies that best complement their learning styles.

Marc also wrote:

If we are contemplating any course in any field, then the concept of "loosely
joined media and programs" does not pose any problem what-so-ever. Teachers have
always been the stitching that holds multiple media together- switching from the
slide projector to the dittos, then passing around a book. The content holds the
curriculum together and the curriculum should be held together by a few big
ideas. In curriculum design the guiding principle is to join the objectives,
assignments and assessments together. Media is never mentioned except as a
medium for delivery. Of course, the instructor must weigh the goal of the lesson
and the time the lesson will take against the difficulty of the technology and
the time it will take to learn & use the technology. If the payoff is low,
students will see the technology as the lesson.

Here, I agree only somewhat. As technology advances and we move away farther from the overhead projectors and ditto of yesteryear technology is integrating itself with all areas of academic study. Technology takes on roles greater than just the medium for delivery.

Consider the study of medicine. Modern medicine can no longer be separated from the technology used for patients' care. Technology has become part of medical content. Not only does technology make up some of the pieces of modern medicine but it also makes up many of the joins that keep the pieces together.

Business education is another example of an industry that can no longer exist without the technological pieces it has entangled throughout.

But how do these small pieces loosely joined relate to time management? As Marc mentioned, it has to do with the delivery aspect of a virtual classroom. In a class utilizing the model of of small pieces loosely joined, it is extremely important for the instructors to have a thorough understanding of the technologies used for delivery. The delivery means for today's online course tend to be far buggier than the dittos and overhead projectors teachers used to contend with. Restricted by the timeframe of a class session, and the attention spans of students, teachers who desire to have students understand the day's lesson can not cloud it up technologies (including the means of content delivery) that distract.