[FC-discuss] "Intellectual property", do we really want to use that term?

[Alex Kozak]

I was being a bit facetious because my def. was adapted from ccLearn's
mission: "Our mission is to minimize legal, technical, and social barriers
to sharing and reuse of educational materials."

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Matthew O. Brimer <mobrimer at gmail.com>wrote:

> Personally, I liked Elizabeth's wording a lot better:
>
> *we promote the ability to share, access, and rework culture and
> knowledge, along with an environment of technological freedom that supports
> it. *
>
>
> Barriers only get in the way -- we have ideas/visions/goals above and
> beyond simply minimizing or "bulldozing" anything. The above takes a
> proactive, positive, and strong approach without focusing on any negativity
> or inferiority at all.
>
> Cheers,
> —MOB
>
> On Aug 20, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Ryan Prior wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Elizabeth Stark<emstark at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> hmm, i prefer a more proactive approach, and less of a reactive one (i.e.
>
> minimizing barriers)...
>
>
> The pro-active approach to minimizing barriers would be bulldozing them,
> right?
>
> "Students for Free Culture is a bulldozer on the path of legal and
> technical barriers to sharing culture and knowledge."
>
> Defined, y'all.
>
>
> Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>


-- 
Alex Kozak
Education Program Assistant
ccLearn, Creative Commons
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090820/de827384/attachment.htm