The goal is to think what the tool does - so the tool should when
delivering the OER perhaps also deliver attribution, instructions on
reuse.

So youtube provides (for example) embed code, reuse graphs on the site.

When one is embedded you get author details, related materials, so on.

I don't see this as outside the remit of the tool, if possible

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Scott Wilson
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 13 May 2011, at 11:44, Pat Lockley wrote:
>
>> Quoting - "Where some form of a product is not distributed with source
>> code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source
>> code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably,
>> downloading via the Internet without charge."
>>
>> That sentence is barely english, and is so wide open a definition as
>> to be almost obfuscation.
>
> Hey, you may not like it, but it *is* the Open Source Definition. Maybe you were thinking of the Free Software Definition instead?
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
>> But feel free to chip on the first two points which are the main point.
>
> Support for editing is a useful but not necessary property of an educational resource, and licenses supporting reuse do not necessarily also grant a license to distribute derivatives.
>
> I'm not sure where this is supposed to be taking us though?
>
> (I'm starting to feel a bit like a Stella drinker in a CAMRA pub - "Microsoft! Its nowt but additives! Try some of Old Bobs Peculiar Slidemaker Machinarium, thats the proper stuff!")
>
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Scott Wilson
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> On 13 May 2011, at 11:07, Pat Lockley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should an OER come with instructions on how to repurpose?
>>>> Perhaps an "How to edit this" button?
>>>>
>>>> As an aside - open source software has to use free tools (I believe to
>>>> qualify properly).
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.
>>>
>>> http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Mike Collett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> All
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting discussion. It seems to me that format impacts on how OERs can
>>>>> be used and reused. I do not think they are completely separate concerns as
>>>>> Scott suggests.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the quoted definitions:
>>>>> “freely for .... use and reuse for teaching, learning and research” and
>>>>> “free use or re-purposing by others”.
>>>>>
>>>>> Education is about participation not just consumption. Reuse could (should?)
>>>>> enable editing and creating – eg change a picture, modify a set of slides,
>>>>> change the learning sequence, remix sound etc
>>>>>
>>>>> If the format of the OER is such that reusers are overly restricted in the
>>>>> tools they can use this impacts on freedom to reuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> “You can freely reuse my course as long as you pay £x for the unique editor
>>>>> or player” is not really in the OER spirit.
>>>>>
>>>>> If openness of OERs lies on a continuum, rather than a dichotomy, then the
>>>>> ready availability of editing tools for a resource’s format has an impact on
>>>>> the level of openness of the resource.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Mike 7:-D
>>>>> -----------
>>>>> Mike Collett, Schemeta
>>>>> +44 7798 728 747
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> www.schemeta.com
>>>>> email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> twitter: @schemeta
>>>>> skype: mikecollett
>>>>>
>>>>> people are the network
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Scott Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Reply-To: Open Educational Resources <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:21:19 +0100
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Your ideal OER Creation tool?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11 May 2011, at 19:12, Anthony Clearn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you could sit down tomorrow and create OER with a new tool - what
>>>>> would the tool do? What features would it have?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. It wouldn’t be based on /use any proprietary software / format.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being a "standards wonk" I'm all for open non-proprietary formats. However
>>>>> is that really an OER issue? Or a more general content formats question?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why shouldn't a set of Powerpoint* slides or an Omnigraffle drawing be an
>>>>> OER if they have a reasonable CC-type license on them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn’t it depend on what you define as OER? Pat how do you define an OER?
>>>>> Isn’t everything that is open and that can be used for education an OER?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, anything can be used for education, so thats not really a qualifier.
>>>>> As for open... that can mean all kinds of things.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to our good friend Wikipedia:
>>>>>
>>>>> "(OER) are digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators,
>>>>> students and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching, learning and
>>>>> research"
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, this more specific definition from the William and Flora Hewlett
>>>>> Foundation::
>>>>>
>>>>> "OER are teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the
>>>>> public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license
>>>>> that permits their free use or re-purposing by others. Open educational
>>>>> resources include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks,
>>>>> streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or
>>>>> techniques used to support access to knowledge"
>>>>>
>>>>> So... an OER is anything with a reasonably liberal license on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In which case the question of authoring tools for OER is principally about
>>>>> the level of support they can provide for handling licensing concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do most people see an OER as just a presentation?
>>>>> 2. If it was a complete lesson OER then it should be able to be viewed on
>>>>> the
>>>>> majority of systems, i.e web based & see point one.
>>>>>
>>>>> And  if it isn't? E.g. if its a Moodle zip export file, or a Blackboard
>>>>> cartridge? Is it not still an OER? Yes, according to the definitions above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people who are interested in OER also have some interest in or opinion
>>>>> on content interoperability and open standards for content formats, but they
>>>>> can be considered separate concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> A.
>>>>>
>>>>> #####################################################################################
>>>>> This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
>>>>> by MailMarshal
>>>>> #####################################################################################
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * Technically this is an open and non-proprietary format: ISO/IEC 29500.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>