From rob at robmyers.org Mon Jun 1 05:48:04 2009 From: rob at robmyers.org (Rob Myers) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:48:04 +0100 Subject: [FC-discuss] "Obama DoJ Goes Against Film Companies" Message-ID: <7fa25200906010248w71deb4c1w4ed62790f8e4aead@mail.gmail.com> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/05/31/1521236/Obama-DoJ-Goes-Against-Film-Companies "The government did indeed file such a brief, but the content of the brief (PDF) is probably not what the film companies were expecting. They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."" From fred.benenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 17:53:34 2009 From: fred.benenson at gmail.com (Fred Benenson) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:53:34 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Voting for the 2009 Board Elections Begins Now. In-Reply-To: <8e447b720905221012t36330e69i1abab031b88be14b@mail.gmail.com> References: <8e447b720905221012t36330e69i1abab031b88be14b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e447b720906011453k7cdeecces396ae28f28c6e94@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to everyone who voted, and sorry about the hiccups (and lack of timeline). I've been running this entire thing, with the very generous help of Mako, in my spare time between some very busy weeks for CC. Anyway, I'm happy to announce our new board: 1. Kevin Driscoll 2. Ben Moskowitz 3. Kevin Donovan 4. Christina Ducruet 5. Parker Higgins You can see the final results here: http://selectricity.org/voter/results/d0837762c832432f3 You can ignore the "The winner is: *Kevin Driscoll" *part as the vote was for 5 board seats, not one. Congratulations to everyone who worked on the election and ran and good luck! Best, Fred ~ ~ ~ thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog work / http://creativecommons.org sights / http://flickr.com/fcb sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis status / http://twitter.com/mecredis On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Fred Benenson wrote: > Dear Students for Free Culture, > If you're an active, registered chapter, you will probably have received > a link to vote for the 2009 Board vote. Take this seriously and follow the > instructions carefully. Here are the nominations and platforms of their > respective campaigns: > > > http://wiki.freeculture.org/Board09/Nominations#Higgins.2C_Parker.2C_Free_Culture_.40_NYU > > Please let me know if you: > > A) Are a chapter head who didn't receive a vote ballot > B) Don't know what to do. > > Best, > > Fred > > > > > ~ ~ ~ > thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog > work / http://creativecommons.org > sights / http://flickr.com/fcb > sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis > status / http://twitter.com/mecredis > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090601/4c58311a/attachment.htm From gavin at gavinbaker.com Mon Jun 1 18:18:11 2009 From: gavin at gavinbaker.com (Gavin Baker) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:18:11 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Pirate Students at Uppsala University Message-ID: <4A2453A3.5020402@gavinbaker.com> I want to call attention to the success of Pirate Students (student branch of the Pirate Party) in the student union at Uppsala University. In elections this year, Pirate Students was the only party to gain seats, and now holds only one less seat than the largest party. As you might expect, their platform speaks directly to free culture issues. I've blogged about it in English here: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/more-on-support-for-oa-by-students-at.html -- Gavin Baker http://www.gavinbaker.com/ gavin at gavinbaker.com in the dream my dog has a whistle only I can hear John Stevenson From glenn.kerbein at pirate-party.us Mon Jun 1 18:18:47 2009 From: glenn.kerbein at pirate-party.us (Glenn Kerbein) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:18:47 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Pirate Students at Uppsala University In-Reply-To: <4A2453A3.5020402@gavinbaker.com> References: <4A2453A3.5020402@gavinbaker.com> Message-ID: <4A2453C7.7010809@pirate-party.us> That's exciting news! I'm happy to see more branches appearing. However, there is a somewhat minor detail that I'm unclear on: what Pirate Party are you referring to? Gavin Baker wrote: > I want to call attention to the success of Pirate Students (student > branch of the Pirate Party) in the student union at Uppsala University. > In elections this year, Pirate Students was the only party to gain > seats, and now holds only one less seat than the largest party. As you > might expect, their platform speaks directly to free culture issues. > > I've blogged about it in English here: > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/more-on-support-for-oa-by-students-at.html > -- Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein Pirate Party of the United States "Burn, Hollywood, Burn" From gavin at gavinbaker.com Mon Jun 1 18:29:55 2009 From: gavin at gavinbaker.com (Gavin Baker) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:29:55 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Pirate Students at Uppsala University In-Reply-To: <4A2453C7.7010809@pirate-party.us> References: <4A2453A3.5020402@gavinbaker.com> <4A2453C7.7010809@pirate-party.us> Message-ID: <4A245663.5030407@gavinbaker.com> Uppsala University is in Sweden. This organization is affiliated with the Swedish Pirate Party. Glenn Kerbein wrote: > That's exciting news! I'm happy to see more branches appearing. However, > there is a somewhat minor detail that I'm unclear on: what Pirate Party > are you referring to? > > Gavin Baker wrote: >> I want to call attention to the success of Pirate Students (student >> branch of the Pirate Party) in the student union at Uppsala University. >> In elections this year, Pirate Students was the only party to gain >> seats, and now holds only one less seat than the largest party. As you >> might expect, their platform speaks directly to free culture issues. >> >> I've blogged about it in English here: >> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/more-on-support-for-oa-by-students-at.html >> > -- Gavin Baker http://www.gavinbaker.com/ gavin at gavinbaker.com The basest of all things is to be afraid. William Faulkner From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Wed Jun 3 10:23:04 2009 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:23:04 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Crawford: Tech Agenda Just Beginning References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A268748.12BCD5C9@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Of course: Susan Crawford RULEZ! :-) (I nevertheless still look upon the Obama administration with a considerable and appropriate measure of trepidation and querulouness. I don't exactly see the words "citizen-powered approaches" regarding international concerns as quite conveying what needs to be heard. (If "citizen-powered approaches" means according the sort of regard for the autonomy of their own representative organs of government that the United States harkened, from its very inception, in the history of the human race -- specifically as opposed to undue regard for transnational entities acting to overpower those organs and their states that originally granted those entities their limited liability privileges -- then we would be hearing something I feel would be worth lending some degree of my trust to. This is the key factor I believe should be borne in mind as one approaches the policy table, even as one nurtures an "open mind." And one has to remain conscious that this administration has taken a good number of steps in certain areas, that already simply have to be reversed/rectified. Just how things look to me. -- Seth) Crawford: Tech Agenda Just Beginning > http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/crawford-tech-agenda-just-begi.php Obama Team Stumps for Tech Policy > http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3823091/Obama+Team+Stumps+for+Tech+Policy.htm Broadband Still at Top of Obama?s List, Says Crawford > http://broadbandcensus.com/2009/06/tech-policy-broadband-still-at-top-of-obamas-list-says-crawford/ --- > http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/crawford-tech-agenda-just-begi.php Tuesday, June 2, 2009 Crawford: Tech Agenda Just Beginning Even though the Obama administration has made important, early strides in its first 133 days as part of its technology policy agenda, a key adviser to the president on Tuesday said the White House has a long way to go. "We need your criticism, your engagement, your involvement, and your help," Susan Crawford, special assistant to the president for science, technology and innovation policy, told the Computers Freedom & Privacy conference (http://www.cfp.org/). After "timely, targeted and tapered" economic stimulus package implementation, the administration's focus will turn to job creation -- and that weighs heavily on high-tech investment, said Crawford who is also a member of the National Economic Council. Innovation is tied to a range of priorities from diminishing the country's carbon footprint and creating clean energy jobs to reducing the cost of healthcare and educating the next generation. Crawford also spoke about the need to bolster broadband deployment and bridge the gaps between urban and rural areas and rich and poor Americans. She said the United States is "definitively behind" its international counterparts and Obama cares deeply about the issue. "This is not about national pride. This is about restoring American competitiveness for the future," Crawford stressed. Addressing the problem will require "civility, thoughtfulness and attention" and that work has begun at the FCC and elsewhere in the administration, she added. On the international front, Crawford pointed out that the State Department is using technology to expand its traditional government-to-government outreach to incorporate citizen-centered approaches to advancing U.S. diplomatic and developmental goals. "A networked public can meaningfully shape international politics," Crawford said. Also from CFP: White House Aide Warns Online Advertisers To Be Monitored (Dow Jones) (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090602-708994.html). --- > http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3823091/Obama+Team+Stumps+for+Tech+Policy.htm Obama Team Stumps for Tech Policy June 2, 2009 By Kenneth Corbin: More stories by this author: White House official Susan Crawford kicks off a D.C. conference with an emphatic call for progressive tech policy at home and abroad. WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's tech policy team has been on a bit of a publicity junket of late. In the four months since taking office, President Obama has added several tech advisory positions to the White House staff, made a series of splashy overtures to new media, and last week, he lent his imprimatur to an ambitious program to overhaul national cybersecurity. And in an effort to demonstrate the administration's commitment to technology, members of the team in recent weeks have become regulars on the tech policy conference circuit. One is Susan Crawford, the president's special assistant for science, technology and innovation policy, who was on hand to kick off this year's Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference here at George Washington University. "Tech policy is at the heart of this administration's plans for the future," she declared. Crawford held forth on a host of areas the administration has identified as priorities, including balancing security with privacy -- one of the prevailing themes of this week's conference -- as well as Net neutrality and universal access to high-speed networks. "To be connected is increasingly essential," Crawford said, noting that much of the administration's domestic agenda, including healthcare and energy reform, hinges on ubiquitous Internet connectivity. "Our broadband connections as a country are slow and expensive," she said. "We're not falling behind, we are definitively behind." The administration put what it described as a down payment on the country's digital infrastructure with the February economic stimulus bill, which directed $7.2 billion for broadband projects. But that money, the administration acknowledges, is only a start. "There is no one easy answer, but without adequate high-speed connections, we will miss tremendous opportunities to pioneer the great innovation of the future," Crawford said. "Because pioneers these days are working on data-intensive, collaborative projects that require high-speed connections that we may not have." Crawford went so far this morning as to compare Obama to Lincoln in his commitment to the cutting-edge technology of the day. Just as Obama is forging a new digital infrastructure, she said, Lincoln was a driving force behind the expansion of the railroad. And when Lincoln arrived at the White House, he installed a telegraph line to receive real-time updates from his advisors in the field, much like the tech-savvy transition set about modernizing the IT facilities when it set up shop in January. Critics have charged that the administration's actions haven't kept pace with its rhetoric about open and transparent government. The president had pledged to post all non-emergency bills online for five days before signing them into law, for instance, but in most cases that hasn't happened. Nevertheless, the administration has taken the initiative to create or overhaul several Web sites in an effort to make government information more accessible to the public. One was Data.gov, a project led by newly minted federal CIO Vivek Kundra and Beth Noveck, who holds the title of deputy CTO and is charged with promoting open government initiatives. The Web site houses vast stores of government information, organized and formatted in a way the administration hopes will make it easy for the public to access and analyze. When administration officials talk about their open government initiatives, they frame them in the crowd-sourced model of Web 2.0 technologies, like Wikipedia, or the software development kits and APIs companies like Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) or Facebook have made available to the developer community. The aim is to make information available to as broad an audience as possible, unleashing a flood of innovation that runs in unpredictable directions. "We have no idea how this data will be used, and that's the point," Crawford said. Crawford also touched on the administration's efforts to promote collaborative technologies abroad as a vehicle for advancing the country's diplomatic agenda. All foreign service officers now receive training in new media technologies to better connect directly with the citizens of foreign countries as the State Department pursues a strategy it calls 21st century statecraft. Crawford also cited Obama's move to ease restrictions for U.S. telecom companies looking to do business in Cuba, an effort seen in part to sow the seeds of democracy by making it easier for Cubans to connect with the outside world. --- > http://broadbandcensus.com/2009/06/tech-policy-broadband-still-at-top-of-obamas-list-says-crawford/ Broadband Still at Top of Obama?s List, Says Crawford By Andrew Feinberg, Deputy Editor, BroadbandCensus.com Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009 WASHINGTON, June 2, 2009 - Just 133 days into the Obama administration, technology policy and broadband deployment are issues ?at the heart of this administration?s plans for the future,? Special Assistant to the President for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Susan Crawford said Tuesday during opening remarks at the Computers, Freedom, Privacy conference in Washington. Broadband deployment remains a linchpin of the Obama agenda, particularly for the nation?s short and long term economic health. The nation?s broadband connections are ?slow and expensive? compared to the rest of the world, Crawford said. "We are not falling behind," she warned. "We are definitely behind." High speed networks can bridge economic, racial and cultural divides, Crawford said. Even the homeless now need access to the internet, Crawford said, referencing a recent article in The New York Times. "We?re talking about the human need to connect," she said. More importantly, broadband will be key to the nation?s economic recovery and future stability. "The president cares deeply about [broadband]," she said. "Without adequate high speed connections, we will miss opportunities." The Federal Communications Commission?s forthcoming national broadband strategy will be a key tool to help aid the recovery effort, even after the stimulus programs have ended, Crawford said. "We have to focus on creating jobs after the stimulus," she said. Network neutrality will almost certainly be an important element of that plan to encourage economic prosperity, she suggested. But no matter the specifics of the FCC plan, Crawford was emphatic about the importance of a coherent national strategy. "[The plan] is not about national pride . . . but about economic competitiveness for the future." From meta.sj at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 11:09:45 2009 From: meta.sj at gmail.com (Samuel Klein) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:09:45 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] To GPL or CC0 In-Reply-To: <4A214BCA.2040806@robmyers.org> References: <2901C70E-100C-40F1-8E71-D988708DBFBE@noneck.org> <59C88637-C390-49D3-9685-F2052286C7C1@noneck.org> <5396c0d10905291320x68f0945bha00395325c2b824d@mail.gmail.com> <4A2071C5.6040100@robmyers.org> <5396c0d10905300040n6adf008aqb71abd70180a3c46@mail.gmail.com> <4A214BCA.2040806@robmyers.org> Message-ID: <5396c0d10906030809w2cab2c1ek8865d5743b2617d@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Rob Myers wrote: >>> The MIT licence. >> >> Too restrictive to be anything like PD. ?It has a "must include this >> in future copies/portions" section and enumerates rights > > The MIT license is absolutely minimal and has the advantage that it > is clear and unambiguous. I don't think "absolutely minimal" and "MIT license" should be in the same sentence. Most of the license text says "look, I'm a license!" :-) "All rights granted." shouldn't take so long to say, clearly and unambiguously. Yes, you cannot grant what you don't have in the first place; that's true by definition. It is ridiculous for there to be no clearer and less humerous alternative to the mercifully concise WTFPL. : TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION : : 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. > The requirement that ... [is] not an impediment to your freedom to use... By definition, 'requirements that' are impediments to use. I want to combine a set of thousands of different things without worrying about where and how and in what language their various sources are listed. It's so self-centered and ownership-heavy to think that the origins and initial author's choice of license or terms should have anything to do with the long-term dissemination and meme propagation of a work. That's not how traditional synthesis takes place from memory, conversation, and culture. And it is excluded from the public domain. > CC0 uses a license to simulate PD where a given jurisdiction does not > have PD dedication. Right. > I think PD itself may be a fine software license; I'd just like a > little confirmation on that score beyond "people have done it before". > > People have done it before. ;-) What kind of issues would persuade you > that it's not fine? Only the issue of 'not having a PD dedication' somewhere. SJ From admin at hhh.freeculture.org Wed Jun 3 21:49:30 2009 From: admin at hhh.freeculture.org (HHH SFC Admin) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:49:30 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Java IRC Chat Message-ID: <1244080170.17483.3.camel@Mac> For anybody that would like to talk on #freeculture on freenode without downloading an IRC client, you can now use http://hhh.freeculture.org/files/irc.html You can use it at work, too! Happy Chatting -- HHH SFC Admin From miserlou at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 17:26:59 2009 From: miserlou at gmail.com (Rich Jones) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:26:59 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Anomos: Censorship resistant, Anonymous BitTorrent Message-ID: Hello, FC! I've been working on this project for a few months now and we're ready to share it with you guys, if you're interested: http://anomos.info/wp/2009/06/04/presenting-anomos/ We hope that through tools like these, we can overcome censorship and bring forth a Free Culture. Rich Boston University Free Culture From oday at fas.harvard.edu Thu Jun 4 17:30:25 2009 From: oday at fas.harvard.edu (Oliver Day) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:30:25 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Anomos: Censorship resistant, Anonymous BitTorrent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A283CF1.7070900@fas.harvard.edu> Rich Jones wrote: > Hello, FC! > > I've been working on this project for a few months now and we're ready > to share it with you guys, if you're interested: > > http://anomos.info/wp/2009/06/04/presenting-anomos/ > > We hope that through tools like these, we can overcome censorship and > bring forth a Free Culture. Nice timing for the release. O From sffcvt at vt.edu Thu Jun 4 20:10:39 2009 From: sffcvt at vt.edu (Matt) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:10:39 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Anomos: Censorship resistant, Anonymous BitTorrent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A28627F.1010808@vt.edu> Rich Jones wrote: > Hello, FC! > > I've been working on this project for a few months now and we're ready > to share it with you guys, if you're interested: > > http://anomos.info/wp/2009/06/04/presenting-anomos/ > > We hope that through tools like these, we can overcome censorship and > bring forth a Free Culture. > > Rich > Boston University Free Culture > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > According to the provided screenshot and the documentation in the Git download, this is based off of BitTorrent 4.0 and distributed under the terms on the GNU GPLv3. However, BitTorrent 4 was released under the BitTorrent Open Source License, which is free but GPL-incompatible. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#bittorrent From miserlou at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 20:15:01 2009 From: miserlou at gmail.com (Rich Jones) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:15:01 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Anomos: Censorship resistant, Anonymous BitTorrent In-Reply-To: <4A28627F.1010808@vt.edu> References: <4A28627F.1010808@vt.edu> Message-ID: We've spoken to them and they said they're through with the BitTorrent license. BT5 is GPL'd on their site, and they said we could GPL BT4. Nice try though! On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Matt wrote: > Rich Jones wrote: >> Hello, FC! >> >> I've been working on this project for a few months now and we're ready >> to share it with you guys, if you're interested: >> >> http://anomos.info/wp/2009/06/04/presenting-anomos/ >> >> We hope that through tools like these, we can overcome censorship and >> bring forth a Free Culture. >> >> Rich >> Boston University Free Culture >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at freeculture.org >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > According to the provided screenshot and the documentation in the Git > download, this is based off of BitTorrent 4.0 and distributed under the > terms on the GNU GPLv3. ?However, BitTorrent 4 was released under the > BitTorrent Open Source License, which is free but GPL-incompatible. > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#bittorrent > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org Thu Jun 4 20:23:26 2009 From: seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:23:26 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Anomos: Censorship resistant, Anonymous BitTorrent In-Reply-To: References: <4A28627F.1010808@vt.edu> Message-ID: You should probably ask them to post the BT4 code with a GPL license. Seth -----Original Message----- From: Rich Jones To: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in particular Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:15:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Anomos: Censorship resistant, Anonymous BitTorrent > We've spoken to them and they said they're through with the > BitTorrent > license. BT5 is GPL'd on their site, and they said we could GPL BT4. > > Nice try though! > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Matt wrote: > > Rich Jones wrote: > >> Hello, FC! > >> > >> I've been working on this project for a few months now and we're > ready > >> to share it with you guys, if you're interested: > >> > >> http://anomos.info/wp/2009/06/04/presenting-anomos/ > >> > >> We hope that through tools like these, we can overcome censorship > and > >> bring forth a Free Culture. > >> > >> Rich > >> Boston University Free Culture > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> Discuss at freeculture.org > >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > > According to the provided screenshot and the documentation in the > Git > > download, this is based off of BitTorrent 4.0 and distributed under > the > > terms on the GNU GPLv3. However, BitTorrent 4 was released under > the > > BitTorrent Open Source License, which is free but GPL-incompatible. > > > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#bittorrent > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 From ryanprior at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 02:40:10 2009 From: ryanprior at gmail.com (Ryan Prior) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 01:40:10 -0500 Subject: [FC-discuss] Anomos: Censorship resistant, Anonymous BitTorrent In-Reply-To: References: <4A28627F.1010808@vt.edu> Message-ID: <1172c9070906042340n29f28a75i966adcc43f941a73@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > > You should probably ask them to post the BT4 code with a GPL license. > > > Seth +1 - if they've decided to GPL it, it would be nice for us all to be able to take advantage of the dual license. From kdonovan11 at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 13:30:39 2009 From: kdonovan11 at gmail.com (Kevin Donovan) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:30:39 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open University Report site sounds great. My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by which we judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index schools, but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen wrote: > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I was at > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a little while back. > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we should try to > create a similar score card with a set of standardized grading criteria > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). > The way our wiki article is structured right now is clunky, and the > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a rundown for each > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and more fun) to read > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to the non-FC crowd > comparing colleges or to those already attending but looking to identify > areas of improvement at their school. > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off and become its > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but I think moving in > that direction could have great potential. > > ? W > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney > wrote: > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we still have a good >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part of that time >> getting together our OU status report (once controversially referred to >> as a "report card") together. >> >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the end of the >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press release or >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are and what we've >> done. >> >> >> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >> >> >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >> >> -- >> D Parker Phinney >> madebyparker.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at freeculture.org >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > -- Sent from my mobile device Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285 From cducruet at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 15:11:42 2009 From: cducruet at gmail.com (Christina Ducruet) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:11:42 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2edd56120906051211v5fcf0c9ah209a108223044d4d@mail.gmail.com> Our rating system could use a numeric scale where each number grade is clearly defined and correlates with different levels of openness. On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Kevin Donovan wrote: > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open > University Report site sounds great. > > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by which we > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index schools, > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? > > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen wrote: > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I was at > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a little while back. > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we should try to > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized grading criteria > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is clunky, and the > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a rundown for > each > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and more fun) to read > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to the non-FC > crowd > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but looking to identify > > areas of improvement at their school. > > > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off and become its > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but I think moving > in > > that direction could have great potential. > > > > ? W > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney > > wrote: > > > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we still have a good > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part of that time > >> getting together our OU status report (once controversially referred to > >> as a "report card") together. > >> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the end of the > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press release or > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are and what we've > >> done. > >> > >> > >> > http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information > >> > >> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. > >> > >> -- > >> D Parker Phinney > >> madebyparker.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> Discuss at freeculture.org > >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Kevin Donovan > Georgetown '11: SFS > 630.849.8285 > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090605/c3f22cd7/attachment-0001.htm From akozak at berkeley.edu Fri Jun 5 15:46:33 2009 From: akozak at berkeley.edu (Alex Kozak) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:46:33 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for University copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I should be able to give you all more information about that soon so that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't quite ready yet. - Alex On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan wrote: > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open > University Report site sounds great. > > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by which we > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index schools, > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? > > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen wrote: > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I was at > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a little while back. > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we should try to > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized grading criteria > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is clunky, and the > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a rundown for > each > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and more fun) to read > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to the non-FC > crowd > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but looking to identify > > areas of improvement at their school. > > > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off and become its > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but I think moving > in > > that direction could have great potential. > > > > ? W > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney > > wrote: > > > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we still have a good > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part of that time > >> getting together our OU status report (once controversially referred to > >> as a "report card") together. > >> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the end of the > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press release or > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are and what we've > >> done. > >> > >> > >> > http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information > >> > >> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. > >> > >> -- > >> D Parker Phinney > >> madebyparker.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> Discuss at freeculture.org > >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Kevin Donovan > Georgetown '11: SFS > 630.849.8285 > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Alex Kozak akozak at berkeley.edu 916.225.2718 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090605/92747082/attachment.htm From wesley at freeculturenyu.org Sat Jun 6 15:35:16 2009 From: wesley at freeculturenyu.org (Wesley Chen) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 15:35:16 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight seems to be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions like "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university in discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I can't think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of 1-5 clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed later. *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is worth 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might have to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. @Alex: Would appreciate that! Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up steam again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in forming a more formal committee to work on this? On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak wrote: > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for University > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I should be > able to give you all more information about that soon so that you could use > it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't quite ready yet. > > - Alex > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan wrote: > >> I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open >> University Report site sounds great. >> >> My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by which we >> judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index schools, >> but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >> >> On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen wrote: >> > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I was at >> > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a little while >> back. >> > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we should try to >> > create a similar score card with a set of standardized grading criteria >> > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >> > The way our wiki article is structured right now is clunky, and the >> > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a rundown for >> each >> > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and more fun) to >> read >> > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to the non-FC >> crowd >> > comparing colleges or to those already attending but looking to identify >> > areas of improvement at their school. >> > >> > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off and become >> its >> > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but I think >> moving in >> > that direction could have great potential. >> > >> > ? W >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >> > wrote: >> > >> >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we still have a good >> >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part of that time >> >> getting together our OU status report (once controversially referred to >> >> as a "report card") together. >> >> >> >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the end of the >> >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press release or >> >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are and what >> we've >> >> done. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >> >> >> >> >> >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> D Parker Phinney >> >> madebyparker.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Discuss mailing list >> >> Discuss at freeculture.org >> >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> Sent from my mobile device >> >> Kevin Donovan >> Georgetown '11: SFS >> 630.849.8285 >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at freeculture.org >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > > -- > Alex Kozak > akozak at berkeley.edu > 916.225.2718 > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090606/f5f7e34c/attachment.htm From gameguy43 at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 15:39:37 2009 From: gameguy43 at gmail.com (D Parker Phinney) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:39:37 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or whatever that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! Wesley Chen wrote: > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight seems to > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions like > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university in > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I can't > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of 1-5 > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed later. > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* > > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is worth > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might have > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. > > @Alex: Would appreciate that! > > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up steam > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in > forming a more formal committee to work on this? > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak > wrote: > > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for University > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I > should be able to give you all more information about that soon so > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't quite > ready yet. > > - Alex > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan > wrote: > > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open > University Report site sounds great. > > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by which we > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index > schools, > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? > > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen > wrote: > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I was at > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a little > while back. > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we > should try to > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized > grading criteria > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is clunky, > and the > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a > rundown for each > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and more > fun) to read > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to the > non-FC crowd > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but looking > to identify > > areas of improvement at their school. > > > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off > and become its > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but I > think moving in > > that direction could have great potential. > > > > ? W > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney > > >wrote: > > > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we still > have a good > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part of > that time > >> getting together our OU status report (once controversially > referred to > >> as a "report card") together. > >> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the end > of the > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press > release or > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are > and what we've > >> done. > >> > >> > >> > http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information > >> > >> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. > >> > >> -- > >> D Parker Phinney > >> madebyparker.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> Discuss at freeculture.org > >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Kevin Donovan > Georgetown '11: SFS > 630.849.8285 > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > -- > Alex Kozak > akozak at berkeley.edu > 916.225.2718 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- D Parker Phinney madebyparker.com From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sun Jun 7 16:37:55 2009 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:37:55 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] It's the Internet Stupid References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A2C2523.EF2C5E32@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://itstheinternetstupid.com/ It?s The Internet Stupid A Comment on Notice of Inquiry, FCC GN Docket No. 09-51 Comments on A National Broadband Plan For Our Future, Notice of Inquiry, FCC GN Docket No. 09-51. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) aims at building a new economic foundation for the United States by providing, ?job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed,? et cetera. As one step towards these goals, the ARRA mandates that the FCC deliver a National Broadband Plan to Congress by February 17, 2010. The National Broadband Plan mandated in Section 6001(k)(2) of the ARRA makes clear that its objectives are for, ?all people of the United States . . . the public . . . [for] advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.? It would be impossible to achieve most of these benefits without the Internet. The most direct, most immediate way to reach these objectives is via broadband connections to the Internet. Broadband has other uses, to be sure. It is used for cellular backhaul, in cable TV systems, for proprietary financial transaction networks and for other proprietary enterprise networks. While cellcos, cablecos and enterprises may need better broadband technologies for their own proprietary purposes, these uses don?t rise to the level that would require a National Broadband Plan for ?all people of the United States.? The people of the United States already have reasonable telephone and television services; they need faster, more affordable, more ubiquitous, more reliable connections to the Internet. Broadband is not the Internet. Broadband is shorthand for a diverse class of wired and wireless digital transmission technologies. The Internet, in contrast, is a set of public protocols for inter-networking systems that specifies how data packets are structured and processed. Broadband technologies, at their essence, are high-capacity and always-on. The essence of the Internet is (a) that it carries all packets that follow its protocols regardless of what kinds of data the packets carry, (b) that it can interconnect all networks that follow those protocols, and (c) its protocols are defined via well-established public processes. There?s risk in confusing broadband and Internet. If the National Broadband Plan starts from the premise that the U.S. needs the innovation, increased productivity, new ideas and freedoms of expression that the Internet affords, then the Plan will be shaped around the Internet. If, instead, the Plan is premised on a need for broadband, it fails to address the ARRA?s mandated objectives directly. More importantly, the premise that broadband is the primary goal entertains the remaking of the Internet in ways that could put its benefits at risk. The primary goal of the Plan should be broadband connections to the Internet. The FCC?s Internet Policy Statement of 2005 is a first attempt to codify important aspects of the Internet independent of access technology. It advocates end-user access to content, and end-user choice of applications, services and devices. It says that Internet users are, ?entitled to competition,? but it does not spell out the entitlement to the benefits of competition, such as increased choice, lower price and diversity of offers. It fails to provide for information about whether advertised services perform as specified. It doesn?t address packet inspection, packet discrimination, data collection or end-user privacy. It is not clear that all of these are within the FCC?s purview, but it is abundantly clear that all of these factors should be critical to a National Broadband Plan that addresses broadband connections to the Internet. Therefore, we urge that the FCC?s National Broadband Plan emphasize that broadband connection to the Internet is the primary goal. In addition, we strongly suggest that the Plan incorporate the FCC Internet Policy Statement of 2005 and extend it to (a) include consumer information that meaningfully specifies connection performance and identifies any throttling, filtering, packet inspection, data collection, et cetera, that the provider imposes upon the connection, (b) prohibit discriminatory or preferential treatment of packets based on sender, recipient or packet contents. Finally, we suggest that the Internet is such a critical infrastructure that enforcement of mandated behavior should be accompanied by penalties severe enough to deter those behaviors. Signatories John Perry Barlow, co-founder Electronic Frontier Foundation, barlow at eff.org Scott Bradner, University Technology Security Officer, Harvard University, sob at harvard.edu Dave Burstein, Editor, DSL Prime, daveb at dslprime.com Robin Chase, Meadow Networks, rchase at alum.mit.edu Judi Clark, independent consultant, judic at manymedia.com Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher, Cook Report on Internet Protocol, cook at cookreport.com Steve Crocker, Author RFC #1, CEO Shinkuro, steve at shinkuro.com Susan Estrada, President, FirstMile.US, susan at firstmile.us Harold Feld, blogger http://wetmachine.com, haroldjfeld at gmail.com Tom Freeburg, CTO Memorylink, tom at memorylink.com Dewayne Hendricks, CEO Tetherless Access, dewayne at tetherless.com David S. Isenberg, isen.com, LLC & F2C:Freedom to Connect, isen at isen.com Jeff Jarvis, City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism; Author of What Would Google Do, jeff at buzzmachine.com Mitch Kapor, co-founder Electronic Frontier Foundation, mitch at kapor.com Larry Lessig, Professor at Harvard Law School & Director of Harvard University Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, lessig at pobox.com Sascha Meinrath, Open Technology Initiative, New America Foundation, meinrath at newamerica.net Jerry Michalski, independent consultant, jerry at sociate.com Elliott Noss, CEO Tucows, enoss at tucows.com Leslie Nulty, Principal, Focal Point Advisory Services/Project Coordinator, East Central Vermont Community Fiber Network Project; and Treasurer, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, nulty_leslie at yahoo.com Tim Nulty, CEO, East Central Vermont Community Fiber Network Project t_nulty at yahoo.com Tim O?Reilly, founder and CEO of O?Reilly Media, tim at oreilly.com Andrew Rasiej, Personal Democracy Forum, andrew at fon.com David P. Reed, early contributor to the Internet architecture, MIT Media Laboratory, dpreed at reed.com Howard Rheingold, Author of The Virtual Community and Smart Mobs, howard at rheingold.com Roy Russell, GoLoco, Inc., roy at alum.mit.edu Doc Searls, Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society, dsearls at cyber.law.harvard.edu Micah L. Sifry, Personal Democracy Forum, msifry at gmail.com Dana Spiegel, Executive Director, NYCwireless, Dana at NYCwireless.net Aaron Swartz, Co-Founder, BoldProgressives.org, me at aaronsw.com Katrin Verclas, Co-Founder, MobileActive.org, katrinverclas at gmail.com David Weinberger, Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society, self at evident.com Stanton Williams, Board Chair, ValleyNet, stan.williams at valley.net Brian Worobey, CEO, openairboston.net, brian at openairboston.net Esme Vos Yu, founder of Muniwireless.com, esme at muniwireless.com From glenn.kerbein at pirate-party.us Sun Jun 7 18:07:08 2009 From: glenn.kerbein at pirate-party.us (Glenn Kerbein) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:07:08 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Compulsory licensing Message-ID: <4A2C3A0C.7060305@pirate-party.us> Dear subscribers, There is an interesting thread going on the PPI mailing list ( http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2009-June/003164.html ). The subject matter is regarding compulsory/statutory licenses, "blanket licensing for downloads." There is a back and forth, indirectly, between RMS and Rick Falkvinge (of PPSE), regarding how, despite being fairly compensated for works, will continue to be unfulfilled. What is SFC's position? My personal inclination is that the schemes should be completely transparent on your ISP bill, and be obviously fairly priced (tiered or flat, I could care less really, for the right price). On a side note: the only country to initially introduce the litigation is the Isle of Mann. Notorious as a tax haven, a flag of convenience, and a gambling center of the UK, the country is now looking towards a more culturally-vibrant society. -- Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein Pirate Party of the United States "Burn, Hollywood, Burn" From emstark at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 23:26:53 2009 From: emstark at gmail.com (Elizabeth Stark) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 23:26:53 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Pirate Party Wins Seat in EU Parliament Message-ID: <55bea5620906072026y7478ed84l7ad5eb1bb48d8b6a@mail.gmail.com> I have to say, I find this quite exciting. Reminds me of when Cory Doctorow talks about how there were more Napster users than voters in the last US presidential election in RiP: A Remix Manifesto... http://af.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idAFTRE55623320090607 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090607/539c0cb4/attachment.htm From despero at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 23:33:17 2009 From: despero at gmail.com (Percy Hatcherson) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 22:33:17 -0500 Subject: [FC-discuss] Pirate Party Wins Seat in EU Parliament In-Reply-To: <55bea5620906072026y7478ed84l7ad5eb1bb48d8b6a@mail.gmail.com> References: <55bea5620906072026y7478ed84l7ad5eb1bb48d8b6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7ead96f50906072033w4481edcbi9a5b22f84bdc7408@mail.gmail.com> This is just brilliant news. I hope that this isn't just a temporary bump in popularity, but rather the beginning of a new upward trend in political awareness concerning the Pirate Party. On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Elizabeth Stark wrote: > I have to say, I find this quite exciting. Reminds me of when Cory Doctorow > talks about how there were more Napster users than voters in the last US > presidential election in RiP: A Remix Manifesto... > > http://af.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idAFTRE55623320090607 > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090607/1ea37955/attachment.htm From emstark at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 00:06:37 2009 From: emstark at gmail.com (Elizabeth Stark) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 00:06:37 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Pirate Party Wins Seat in EU Parliament In-Reply-To: <7ead96f50906072033w4481edcbi9a5b22f84bdc7408@mail.gmail.com> References: <55bea5620906072026y7478ed84l7ad5eb1bb48d8b6a@mail.gmail.com> <7ead96f50906072033w4481edcbi9a5b22f84bdc7408@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <55bea5620906072106r70ae6aedscb70514fc13660c3@mail.gmail.com> According to TorrentFreak, they may even get two: http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament-090607/ On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Percy Hatcherson wrote: > This is just brilliant news. I hope that this isn't just a temporary bump > in popularity, but rather the beginning of a new upward trend in political > awareness concerning the Pirate Party. > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Elizabeth Stark wrote: > >> I have to say, I find this quite exciting. Reminds me of when Cory >> Doctorow talks about how there were more Napster users than voters in the >> last US presidential election in RiP: A Remix Manifesto... >> >> http://af.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idAFTRE55623320090607 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090608/da2d21e3/attachment.htm From glenn.kerbein at pirate-party.us Mon Jun 8 08:01:05 2009 From: glenn.kerbein at pirate-party.us (Glenn Kerbein) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:01:05 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Pirate Party Wins Seat in EU Parliament In-Reply-To: <55bea5620906072106r70ae6aedscb70514fc13660c3@mail.gmail.com> References: <55bea5620906072026y7478ed84l7ad5eb1bb48d8b6a@mail.gmail.com> <7ead96f50906072033w4481edcbi9a5b22f84bdc7408@mail.gmail.com> <55bea5620906072106r70ae6aedscb70514fc13660c3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A2CFD81.3080606@pirate-party.us> http://www.pp-international.net/files/PP_EU_Election_09_PR.pdf Came out at 1530 PDT, minutes after the election results came in. Elizabeth Stark wrote: > According to TorrentFreak, they may even get two: > > http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament-090607/ > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Percy Hatcherson > wrote: > > This is just brilliant news. I hope that this isn't just a temporary > bump in popularity, but rather the beginning of a new upward trend > in political awareness concerning the Pirate Party. > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Elizabeth Stark > wrote: > > I have to say, I find this quite exciting. Reminds me of when > Cory Doctorow talks about how there were more Napster users than > voters in the last US presidential election in RiP: A Remix > Manifesto... > > http://af.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idAFTRE55623320090607 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein Pirate Party of the United States "Burn, Hollywood, Burn" From kdonovan11 at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 11:50:12 2009 From: kdonovan11 at gmail.com (Kevin Donovan) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:50:12 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this idea off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact change. One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a large survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience suggested we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US News' Top 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will still force us to define the methodology and give us experience with the research process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have this, it could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger survey. On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney wrote: > definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the > criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or whatever > that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! > > Wesley Chen wrote: > > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight seems to > > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network > > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions like > > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university in > > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall > > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I can't > > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of 1-5 > > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any > > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed later. > > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* > > > > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is worth > > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. > > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our > > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might have > > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. > > > > @Alex: Would appreciate that! > > > > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think > > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up steam > > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in > > forming a more formal committee to work on this? > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak > > wrote: > > > > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for University > > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I > > should be able to give you all more information about that soon so > > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't quite > > ready yet. > > > > - Alex > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan > > wrote: > > > > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open > > University Report site sounds great. > > > > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by which we > > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index > > schools, > > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? > > > > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen > > wrote: > > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I was > at > > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a little > > while back. > > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we > > should try to > > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized > > grading criteria > > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). > > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is clunky, > > and the > > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a > > rundown for each > > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and more > > fun) to read > > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to the > > non-FC crowd > > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but looking > > to identify > > > areas of improvement at their school. > > > > > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off > > and become its > > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but I > > think moving in > > > that direction could have great potential. > > > > > > ? W > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney > > > >wrote: > > > > > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we still > > have a good > > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part of > > that time > > >> getting together our OU status report (once controversially > > referred to > > >> as a "report card") together. > > >> > > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the end > > of the > > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press > > release or > > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are > > and what we've > > >> done. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information > > >> > > >> > > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> D Parker Phinney > > >> madebyparker.com > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Discuss mailing list > > >> Discuss at freeculture.org > > >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from my mobile device > > > > Kevin Donovan > > Georgetown '11: SFS > > 630.849.8285 > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss at freeculture.org > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alex Kozak > > akozak at berkeley.edu > > 916.225.2718 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > -- > D Parker Phinney > madebyparker.com > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/b3298770/attachment-0001.htm From cducruet at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 11:59:50 2009 From: cducruet at gmail.com (Christina Ducruet) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:59:50 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our ratings could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these schools. Anyone got great SEO skills? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan wrote: > Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this > idea off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way > to enact change. > > One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a > large survey of schools, one professor with lots of political > experience suggested we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning > (researching and ranking US News' Top 10 Schools). I think this > makes a lot of sense because it will still force us to define the > methodology and give us experience with the research process, but it > will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have this, it could > serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger survey. > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney > wrote: > definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the > criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or > whatever > that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! > > Wesley Chen wrote: > > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight > seems to > > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network > > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions > like > > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university > in > > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall > > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I > can't > > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of > 1-5 > > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any > > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed > later. > > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* > > > > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is > worth > > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. > > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our > > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might > have > > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. > > > > @Alex: Would appreciate that! > > > > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think > > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up > steam > > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in > > forming a more formal committee to work on this? > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak > > wrote: > > > > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for > University > > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I > > should be able to give you all more information about that > soon so > > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't > quite > > ready yet. > > > > - Alex > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan > > wrote: > > > > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone > Open > > University Report site sounds great. > > > > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by > which we > > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross > index > > schools, > > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? > > > > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen > > wrote: > > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when > I was at > > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a > little > > while back. > > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that > we > > should try to > > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized > > grading criteria > > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). > > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is > clunky, > > and the > > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about > creating a > > rundown for each > > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and > more > > fun) to read > > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing > to the > > non-FC crowd > > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but > looking > > to identify > > > areas of improvement at their school. > > > > > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin > off > > and become its > > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, > but I > > think moving in > > > that direction could have great potential. > > > > > > ? W > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney > > > >wrote: > > > > > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we > still > > have a good > > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending > part of > > that time > > >> getting together our OU status report (once > controversially > > referred to > > >> as a "report card") together. > > >> > > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by > the end > > of the > > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of > press > > release or > > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we > are > > and what we've > > >> done. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information > > >> > > >> > > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> D Parker Phinney > > >> madebyparker.com > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Discuss mailing list > > >> Discuss at freeculture.org > > >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from my mobile device > > > > Kevin Donovan > > Georgetown '11: SFS > > 630.849.8285 > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss at freeculture.org > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alex Kozak > > akozak at berkeley.edu > > 916.225.2718 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > -- > D Parker Phinney > madebyparker.com > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > -- > Kevin Donovan > Georgetown '11: SFS > 630.849.8285 > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/e51b382f/attachment.htm From wesley at freeculturenyu.org Thu Jun 11 14:22:35 2009 From: wesley at freeculturenyu.org (Wesley Chen) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:22:35 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a basketful to deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at first: Harvard, MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get a lot of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: Slashdot, Ars, digg, BB, etc. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet wrote: > What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our ratings > could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these schools. > Anyone got great SEO skills? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan wrote: > > Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this idea off > them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact change. > > One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a large > survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience suggested > we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US News' Top > 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will still force > us to define the methodology and give us experience with the research > process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have this, it > could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger survey. > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney < > gameguy43 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or whatever >> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >> >> Wesley Chen wrote: >> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight seems to >> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions like >> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university in >> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall >> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I can't >> > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of 1-5 >> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any >> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed later. >> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >> > >> > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is worth >> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our >> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might have >> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >> > >> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >> > >> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think >> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up steam >> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in >> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < >> akozak at berkeley.edu >> > akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote: >> > >> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for University >> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I >> > should be able to give you all more information about that soon so >> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't quite >> > ready yet. >> > >> > - Alex >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan < >> kdonovan11 at gmail.com >> > kdonovan11 at gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open >> > University Report site sounds great. >> > >> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by which >> we >> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index >> > schools, >> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >> > >> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < >> wesley at freeculturenyu.org >> > wesley at freeculturenyu.org>> >> wrote: >> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I was >> at >> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a little >> > while back. >> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we >> > should try to >> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >> > grading criteria >> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is clunky, >> > and the >> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a >> > rundown for each >> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and more >> > fun) to read >> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to the >> > non-FC crowd >> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but looking >> > to identify >> > > areas of improvement at their school. >> > > >> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off >> > and become its >> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but I >> > think moving in >> > > that direction could have great potential. >> > > >> > > ? W >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >> > > < gameguy43 at gmail.com >> gameguy43 at gmail.com>>wrote: >> > > >> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we still >> > have a good >> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part of >> > that time >> > >> getting together our OU status report (once controversially >> > referred to >> > >> as a "report card") together. >> > >> >> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the end >> > of the >> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press >> > release or >> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are >> > and what we've >> > >> done. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> D Parker Phinney >> > >> madebyparker.com < >> http://madebyparker.com> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> Discuss mailing list >> > >> Discuss at freeculture.org >> Discuss at freeculture.org> >> > >> >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > Sent from my mobile device >> > >> > Kevin Donovan >> > Georgetown '11: SFS >> > 630.849.8285 >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Discuss mailing list >> > Discuss at freeculture.org >> Discuss at freeculture.org> >> > >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Alex Kozak >> > akozak at berkeley.edu >> akozak at berkeley.edu> >> > 916.225.2718 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Discuss mailing list >> > Discuss at freeculture.org >> 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 >> >> -- >> D Parker Phinney >> madebyparker.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at freeculture.org >> >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > > -- > Kevin Donovan > Georgetown '11: SFS > 630.849.8285 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/0aab984f/attachment-0001.htm From adikamdar at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 14:40:12 2009 From: adikamdar at gmail.com (Adi Kamdar) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:40:12 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <684dbf750906111140v331be3e1h1f86a2d8d44b1b9a@mail.gmail.com> Wesley, don't forget Yale! I think we should start brainstorming the list of criteria asap, either here or on the wiki. -Adi On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a basketful to > deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at first: Harvard, > MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. > @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get a lot > of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: Slashdot, > Ars, digg, BB, etc. > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet wrote: > >> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our ratings >> could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these schools. >> Anyone got great SEO skills? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan wrote: >> >> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this idea >> off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact >> change. >> >> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a large >> survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience suggested >> we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US News' Top >> 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will still force >> us to define the methodology and give us experience with the research >> process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have this, it >> could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger survey. >> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney < >> gameguy43 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or whatever >>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>> >>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight seems to >>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions like >>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university in >>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall >>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I >>> can't >>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of 1-5 >>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any >>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed later. >>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>> > >>> > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is worth >>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our >>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might have >>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>> > >>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>> > >>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think >>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up >>> steam >>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in >>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < >>> akozak at berkeley.edu >>> > akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote: >>> > >>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>> University >>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I >>> > should be able to give you all more information about that soon so >>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't quite >>> > ready yet. >>> > >>> > - Alex >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan < >>> kdonovan11 at gmail.com >>> > kdonovan11 at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open >>> > University Report site sounds great. >>> > >>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by which >>> we >>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index >>> > schools, >>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>> > >>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < >>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org >>> > wesley at freeculturenyu.org>> >>> wrote: >>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I >>> was at >>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>> little >>> > while back. >>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we >>> > should try to >>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>> > grading criteria >>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is clunky, >>> > and the >>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a >>> > rundown for each >>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and more >>> > fun) to read >>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to >>> the >>> > non-FC crowd >>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but looking >>> > to identify >>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>> > > >>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off >>> > and become its >>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but I >>> > think moving in >>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>> > > >>> > > ? W >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>> > > < gameguy43 at gmail.com >>> gameguy43 at gmail.com>>wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we still >>> > have a good >>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part of >>> > that time >>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once controversially >>> > referred to >>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>> > >> >>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the end >>> > of the >>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press >>> > release or >>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are >>> > and what we've >>> > >> done. >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >>> > >> >>> > >> -- >>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>> > >> madebyparker.com < >>> http://madebyparker.com> >>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>> > >> Discuss at freeculture.org >>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>> > >> >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Sent from my mobile device >>> > >>> > Kevin Donovan >>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>> > 630.849.8285 >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Discuss mailing list >>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>> > >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Alex Kozak >>> > akozak at berkeley.edu >>> akozak at berkeley.edu> >>> > 916.225.2718 >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Discuss mailing list >>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> D Parker Phinney >>> madebyparker.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>> >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Donovan >> Georgetown '11: SFS >> 630.849.8285 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/faa1b995/attachment.htm From brian at freedomforip.org Thu Jun 11 14:57:14 2009 From: brian at freedomforip.org (Brian Rowe) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:57:14 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> I am a little confused, are we looking for the top 10 open universities or are we rating the top 10 USWR schools on thier open status? If the latter we should also include at least 2 other schools that are in the 11-99 field, but might have better Open University scores, it would have much broader appeal and be more useful. If a student is attending a lower rated school it helps a lot to have a similarly rated school to point to as an example when trying to get ones own school to open up. Telling Seattle University that Yale, who is slightly better funded, is open is not as effective as telling them that Lewis and Clark which has the same budget is ahead of us on this issue. Here is one I would recommend including and one maybe: Michigan Lewis and Clark ? (their law school is great, I am not sure about their undergrad) -Brian On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a basketful to > deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at first: Harvard, > MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. > @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get a lot > of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: Slashdot, > Ars, digg, BB, etc. > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet wrote: > >> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our ratings >> could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these schools. >> Anyone got great SEO skills? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan wrote: >> >> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this idea >> off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact >> change. >> >> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a large >> survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience suggested >> we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US News' Top >> 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will still force >> us to define the methodology and give us experience with the research >> process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have this, it >> could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger survey. >> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney < >> gameguy43 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or whatever >>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>> >>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight seems to >>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions like >>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university in >>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall >>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I >>> can't >>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of 1-5 >>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any >>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed later. >>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>> > >>> > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is worth >>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our >>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might have >>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>> > >>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>> > >>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think >>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up >>> steam >>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in >>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < >>> akozak at berkeley.edu >>> > akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote: >>> > >>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>> University >>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I >>> > should be able to give you all more information about that soon so >>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't quite >>> > ready yet. >>> > >>> > - Alex >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan < >>> kdonovan11 at gmail.com >>> > kdonovan11 at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open >>> > University Report site sounds great. >>> > >>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by which >>> we >>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index >>> > schools, >>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>> > >>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < >>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org >>> > wesley at freeculturenyu.org>> >>> wrote: >>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I >>> was at >>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>> little >>> > while back. >>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we >>> > should try to >>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>> > grading criteria >>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is clunky, >>> > and the >>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a >>> > rundown for each >>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and more >>> > fun) to read >>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to >>> the >>> > non-FC crowd >>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but looking >>> > to identify >>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>> > > >>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off >>> > and become its >>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but I >>> > think moving in >>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>> > > >>> > > ? W >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>> > > < gameguy43 at gmail.com >>> gameguy43 at gmail.com>>wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we still >>> > have a good >>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part of >>> > that time >>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once controversially >>> > referred to >>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>> > >> >>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the end >>> > of the >>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press >>> > release or >>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are >>> > and what we've >>> > >> done. >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >>> > >> >>> > >> -- >>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>> > >> madebyparker.com < >>> http://madebyparker.com> >>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>> > >> Discuss at freeculture.org >>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>> > >> >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Sent from my mobile device >>> > >>> > Kevin Donovan >>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>> > 630.849.8285 >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Discuss mailing list >>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>> > >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Alex Kozak >>> > akozak at berkeley.edu >>> akozak at berkeley.edu> >>> > 916.225.2718 >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Discuss mailing list >>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> D Parker Phinney >>> madebyparker.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>> >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Donovan >> Georgetown '11: SFS >> 630.849.8285 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Brian Rowe Juris Doctorate Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge (206) 335-8577 (Cell) Public Knowledge www.publicknowledge.org Access To Justice Technology Principles www.ATJWeb.org Freedom for IP www.FreedomforIP.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/de9bfcf9/attachment-0001.htm From wesley at freeculturenyu.org Thu Jun 11 15:15:01 2009 From: wesley at freeculturenyu.org (Wesley Chen) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:15:01 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight?just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, let's make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been relatively active in the Free Culture movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a great point about creating viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts there (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it easier to hone our methodology and approach. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: > I am a little confused, are we looking for the top 10 open universities or > are we rating the top 10 USWR schools on thier open status? > > If the latter we should also include at least 2 other schools that are in > the 11-99 field, but might have better Open University scores, it would have > much broader appeal and be more useful. If a student is attending a lower > rated school it helps a lot to have a similarly rated school to point to as > an example when trying to get ones own school to open up. Telling Seattle > University that Yale, who is slightly better funded, is open is not as > effective as telling them that Lewis and Clark which has the same budget is > ahead of us on this issue. > > Here is one I would recommend including and one maybe: > Michigan > Lewis and Clark ? (their law school is great, I am not sure about their > undergrad) > > -Brian > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > >> @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a basketful >> to deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at first: >> Harvard, MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. >> @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get a >> lot of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: >> Slashdot, Ars, digg, BB, etc. >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet wrote: >> >>> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our ratings >>> could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these schools. >>> Anyone got great SEO skills? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan >>> wrote: >>> >>> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this idea >>> off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact >>> change. >>> >>> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a large >>> survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience suggested >>> we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US News' Top >>> 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will still force >>> us to define the methodology and give us experience with the research >>> process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have this, it >>> could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger survey. >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney < >>> gameguy43 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or whatever >>>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>>> >>>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight seems >>>> to >>>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >>>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions like >>>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university in >>>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall >>>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I >>>> can't >>>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of 1-5 >>>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any >>>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed >>>> later. >>>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>>> > >>>> > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is worth >>>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our >>>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might have >>>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>>> > >>>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>>> > >>>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think >>>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up >>>> steam >>>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in >>>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < >>>> akozak at berkeley.edu >>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>>> University >>>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I >>>> > should be able to give you all more information about that soon so >>>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't quite >>>> > ready yet. >>>> > >>>> > - Alex >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan < >>>> kdonovan11 at gmail.com >>>> > kdonovan11 at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open >>>> > University Report site sounds great. >>>> > >>>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by which >>>> we >>>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index >>>> > schools, >>>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>>> > >>>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < >>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org >>>> > wesley at freeculturenyu.org>> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I >>>> was at >>>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>>> little >>>> > while back. >>>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we >>>> > should try to >>>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>>> > grading criteria >>>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is clunky, >>>> > and the >>>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a >>>> > rundown for each >>>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and >>>> more >>>> > fun) to read >>>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to >>>> the >>>> > non-FC crowd >>>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but >>>> looking >>>> > to identify >>>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>>> > > >>>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off >>>> > and become its >>>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but >>>> I >>>> > think moving in >>>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>>> > > >>>> > > ? W >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>>> > > < gameguy43 at gmail.com >>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com>>wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we >>>> still >>>> > have a good >>>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part of >>>> > that time >>>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once >>>> controversially >>>> > referred to >>>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the >>>> end >>>> > of the >>>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press >>>> > release or >>>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are >>>> > and what we've >>>> > >> done. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> -- >>>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>>> > >> madebyparker.com < >>>> http://madebyparker.com> >>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>>> > >> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>> > >> >>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Sent from my mobile device >>>> > >>>> > Kevin Donovan >>>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>>> > 630.849.8285 >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>> > >>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Alex Kozak >>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu >>>> akozak at berkeley.edu> >>>> > 916.225.2718 >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> D Parker Phinney >>>> madebyparker.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>> >>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kevin Donovan >>> Georgetown '11: SFS >>> 630.849.8285 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at freeculture.org >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > > -- > Brian Rowe > Juris Doctorate > Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge > (206) 335-8577 (Cell) > > Public Knowledge > www.publicknowledge.org > > Access To Justice Technology Principles > www.ATJWeb.org > > Freedom for IP > www.FreedomforIP.org > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/dd655aae/attachment-0001.htm From parkerhiggins at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 15:24:44 2009 From: parkerhiggins at gmail.com (Parker Higgins) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:24:44 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <97afb7270906111221h86caf64oe321658e9c85785d@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> <97afb7270906111221h86caf64oe321658e9c85785d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <97afb7270906111224i7e47edccq4cb5b6d048c6a84d@mail.gmail.com> Maybe we should include the top 10 schools by us news and world report, and then also schools with active free culture chapters? There's a fair amount of overlap, so it probably doesn't total more than 15 or 20 schools. That seems like a good amount to start with to me. Parker Sent from my portable e-mail unit On Jun 11, 2009 12:15 PM, "Wesley Chen" wrote: @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight?just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, let's make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been relatively active in the Free Culture movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a great point about creating viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts there (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it easier to hone our methodology and approach. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: > > I am a little con... _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss at freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/65a2b8af/attachment.htm From parkerhiggins at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 15:24:44 2009 From: parkerhiggins at gmail.com (Parker Higgins) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:24:44 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <97afb7270906111221h86caf64oe321658e9c85785d@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> <97afb7270906111221h86caf64oe321658e9c85785d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <97afb7270906111224i7e47edccq4cb5b6d048c6a84d@mail.gmail.com> Maybe we should include the top 10 schools by us news and world report, and then also schools with active free culture chapters? There's a fair amount of overlap, so it probably doesn't total more than 15 or 20 schools. That seems like a good amount to start with to me. Parker Sent from my portable e-mail unit On Jun 11, 2009 12:15 PM, "Wesley Chen" wrote: @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight?just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, let's make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been relatively active in the Free Culture movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a great point about creating viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts there (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it easier to hone our methodology and approach. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: > > I am a little con... _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss at freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/65a2b8af/attachment-0001.htm From adikamdar at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 15:26:08 2009 From: adikamdar at gmail.com (Adi Kamdar) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:26:08 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <684dbf750906111226y6b14f82k6bbde46189459df9@mail.gmail.com> Wesley--heh, okay. Brian--I think Wesley's response sums it up nicely. We can (fairly) easily get the schools with FC chapters to devote some time into researching/grading their school, and conservatively we have 10 fairly popular, well known schools right there (with a lot of overlap with USNWR's top 10). Once we have criteria/our own schools graded, I think it wouldn't be too hard to expand from there. For example, you mentioned Michigan, which I know has an OCW program, and perhaps more?it's just a matter of digging a little or contacting the right people. Basically, we need 1) criteria/scale, 2) to grade ourselves, then 3) to grade others. I think this would be the most efficient. -Adi On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight?just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, let's > make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? > @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been relatively > active in the Free Culture > movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a great point about creating > viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools > as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for > ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts there > (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with > a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it > easier to hone our methodology and approach. > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: > >> I am a little confused, are we looking for the top 10 open universities or >> are we rating the top 10 USWR schools on thier open status? >> >> If the latter we should also include at least 2 other schools that are in >> the 11-99 field, but might have better Open University scores, it would have >> much broader appeal and be more useful. If a student is attending a lower >> rated school it helps a lot to have a similarly rated school to point to as >> an example when trying to get ones own school to open up. Telling Seattle >> University that Yale, who is slightly better funded, is open is not as >> effective as telling them that Lewis and Clark which has the same budget is >> ahead of us on this issue. >> >> Here is one I would recommend including and one maybe: >> Michigan >> Lewis and Clark ? (their law school is great, I am not sure about their >> undergrad) >> >> -Brian >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: >> >>> @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a basketful >>> to deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at first: >>> Harvard, MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. >>> @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get a >>> lot of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: >>> Slashdot, Ars, digg, BB, etc. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet wrote: >>> >>>> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our ratings >>>> could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these schools. >>>> Anyone got great SEO skills? >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this idea >>>> off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact >>>> change. >>>> >>>> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a large >>>> survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience suggested >>>> we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US News' Top >>>> 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will still force >>>> us to define the methodology and give us experience with the research >>>> process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have this, it >>>> could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger survey. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney < >>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>>>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or >>>>> whatever >>>>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>>>> >>>>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>>>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight seems >>>>> to >>>>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >>>>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions like >>>>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university in >>>>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall >>>>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I >>>>> can't >>>>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of >>>>> 1-5 >>>>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any >>>>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed >>>>> later. >>>>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>>>> > >>>>> > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is >>>>> worth >>>>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>>>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our >>>>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might >>>>> have >>>>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>>>> > >>>>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>>>> > >>>>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think >>>>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up >>>>> steam >>>>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in >>>>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>>>> > >>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < >>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>>>> University >>>>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I >>>>> > should be able to give you all more information about that soon >>>>> so >>>>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't quite >>>>> > ready yet. >>>>> > >>>>> > - Alex >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan < >>>>> kdonovan11 at gmail.com >>>>> > kdonovan11 at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone Open >>>>> > University Report site sounds great. >>>>> > >>>>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by >>>>> which we >>>>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross index >>>>> > schools, >>>>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>>>> > >>>>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < >>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org >>>>> > >>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org>> wrote: >>>>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I >>>>> was at >>>>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>>>> little >>>>> > while back. >>>>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that we >>>>> > should try to >>>>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>>>> > grading criteria >>>>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>>>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is >>>>> clunky, >>>>> > and the >>>>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating a >>>>> > rundown for each >>>>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and >>>>> more >>>>> > fun) to read >>>>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to >>>>> the >>>>> > non-FC crowd >>>>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but >>>>> looking >>>>> > to identify >>>>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin off >>>>> > and become its >>>>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, but >>>>> I >>>>> > think moving in >>>>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > ? W >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>>>> > > < gameguy43 at gmail.com >>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com>>wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we >>>>> still >>>>> > have a good >>>>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part >>>>> of >>>>> > that time >>>>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once >>>>> controversially >>>>> > referred to >>>>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the >>>>> end >>>>> > of the >>>>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of press >>>>> > release or >>>>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we are >>>>> > and what we've >>>>> > >> done. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> -- >>>>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>>>> > >> madebyparker.com < >>>>> http://madebyparker.com> >>>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>>>> > >> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>> > >> >>>>> >>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> > >> >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Sent from my mobile device >>>>> > >>>>> > Kevin Donovan >>>>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>> > 630.849.8285 >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>> > >>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Alex Kozak >>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu> >>>>> > 916.225.2718 >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> D Parker Phinney >>>>> madebyparker.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>> >>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Kevin Donovan >>>> Georgetown '11: SFS >>>> 630.849.8285 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Brian Rowe >> Juris Doctorate >> Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge >> (206) 335-8577 (Cell) >> >> Public Knowledge >> www.publicknowledge.org >> >> Access To Justice Technology Principles >> www.ATJWeb.org >> >> Freedom for IP >> www.FreedomforIP.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/9560de0b/attachment-0001.htm From kdonovan11 at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 15:36:54 2009 From: kdonovan11 at gmail.com (Kevin Donovan) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:36:54 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <684dbf750906111226y6b14f82k6bbde46189459df9@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> <684dbf750906111226y6b14f82k6bbde46189459df9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <827235d0906111236u36b2fddfv8801f2acda41208c@mail.gmail.com> Sorry that was unclear. I think Top 10 USNWR schools + 5 or so (likely with SFC chapters) makes a lot of sense. For example, UMich doesn't fit either of those, but surely deserves recognition for their great work with open.umich.edu. I'm editing: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards to get some thoughts down on this. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Adi Kamdar wrote: > Wesley--heh, okay. > > Brian--I think Wesley's response sums it up nicely. We can (fairly) easily > get the schools with FC chapters to devote some time into > researching/grading their school, and conservatively we have 10 fairly > popular, well known schools right there (with a lot of overlap with USNWR's > top 10). Once we have criteria/our own schools graded, I think it wouldn't > be too hard to expand from there. For example, you mentioned Michigan, which > I know has an OCW program, and perhaps more?it's just a matter of digging a > little or contacting the right people. Basically, we need 1) criteria/scale, > 2) to grade ourselves, then 3) to grade others. I think this would be the > most efficient. > > -Adi > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > >> @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight?just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, >> let's make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? >> @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been relatively >> active in the Free Culture >> movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a great point about creating >> viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools >> as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for >> ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts there >> (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with >> a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it >> easier to hone our methodology and approach. >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: >> >>> I am a little confused, are we looking for the top 10 open universities >>> or are we rating the top 10 USWR schools on thier open status? >>> >>> If the latter we should also include at least 2 other schools that are in >>> the 11-99 field, but might have better Open University scores, it would have >>> much broader appeal and be more useful. If a student is attending a lower >>> rated school it helps a lot to have a similarly rated school to point to as >>> an example when trying to get ones own school to open up. Telling Seattle >>> University that Yale, who is slightly better funded, is open is not as >>> effective as telling them that Lewis and Clark which has the same budget is >>> ahead of us on this issue. >>> >>> Here is one I would recommend including and one maybe: >>> Michigan >>> Lewis and Clark ? (their law school is great, I am not sure about their >>> undergrad) >>> >>> -Brian >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: >>> >>>> @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a basketful >>>> to deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at first: >>>> Harvard, MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. >>>> @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get a >>>> lot of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: >>>> Slashdot, Ars, digg, BB, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet wrote: >>>> >>>>> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our >>>>> ratings could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these >>>>> schools. Anyone got great SEO skills? >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this idea >>>>> off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact >>>>> change. >>>>> >>>>> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a large >>>>> survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience suggested >>>>> we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US News' Top >>>>> 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will still force >>>>> us to define the methodology and give us experience with the research >>>>> process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have this, it >>>>> could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger survey. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney < >>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>>>>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or >>>>>> whatever >>>>>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>>>>> >>>>>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>>>>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight seems >>>>>> to >>>>>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >>>>>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions >>>>>> like >>>>>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university >>>>>> in >>>>>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall >>>>>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I >>>>>> can't >>>>>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of >>>>>> 1-5 >>>>>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any >>>>>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed >>>>>> later. >>>>>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>>>>> > >>>>>> > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is >>>>>> worth >>>>>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>>>>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our >>>>>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might >>>>>> have >>>>>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think >>>>>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up >>>>>> steam >>>>>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in >>>>>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < >>>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>>>>> University >>>>>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I >>>>>> > should be able to give you all more information about that soon >>>>>> so >>>>>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't >>>>>> quite >>>>>> > ready yet. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > - Alex >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan < >>>>>> kdonovan11 at gmail.com >>>>>> > kdonovan11 at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone >>>>>> Open >>>>>> > University Report site sounds great. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by >>>>>> which we >>>>>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross >>>>>> index >>>>>> > schools, >>>>>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < >>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org >>>>>> > >>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org>> wrote: >>>>>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I >>>>>> was at >>>>>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>>>>> little >>>>>> > while back. >>>>>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that >>>>>> we >>>>>> > should try to >>>>>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>>>>> > grading criteria >>>>>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>>>>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is >>>>>> clunky, >>>>>> > and the >>>>>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating >>>>>> a >>>>>> > rundown for each >>>>>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and >>>>>> more >>>>>> > fun) to read >>>>>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to >>>>>> the >>>>>> > non-FC crowd >>>>>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but >>>>>> looking >>>>>> > to identify >>>>>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin >>>>>> off >>>>>> > and become its >>>>>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, >>>>>> but I >>>>>> > think moving in >>>>>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > ? W >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>>>>> > > < gameguy43 at gmail.com >>>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com>>wrote: >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we >>>>>> still >>>>>> > have a good >>>>>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part >>>>>> of >>>>>> > that time >>>>>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once >>>>>> controversially >>>>>> > referred to >>>>>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the >>>>>> end >>>>>> > of the >>>>>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of >>>>>> press >>>>>> > release or >>>>>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we >>>>>> are >>>>>> > and what we've >>>>>> > >> done. >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> -- >>>>>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>>>>> > >> madebyparker.com < >>>>>> http://madebyparker.com> >>>>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>>>>> > >> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > Sent from my mobile device >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Kevin Donovan >>>>>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>> > 630.849.8285 >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > Alex Kozak >>>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu> >>>>>> > 916.225.2718 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> D Parker Phinney >>>>>> madebyparker.com >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>> >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Kevin Donovan >>>>> Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>> 630.849.8285 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Brian Rowe >>> Juris Doctorate >>> Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge >>> (206) 335-8577 (Cell) >>> >>> Public Knowledge >>> www.publicknowledge.org >>> >>> Access To Justice Technology Principles >>> www.ATJWeb.org >>> >>> Freedom for IP >>> www.FreedomforIP.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/1e97494c/attachment-0001.htm From wesley at freeculturenyu.org Thu Jun 11 15:52:03 2009 From: wesley at freeculturenyu.org (Wesley Chen) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:52:03 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <827235d0906111236u36b2fddfv8801f2acda41208c@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> <684dbf750906111226y6b14f82k6bbde46189459df9@mail.gmail.com> <827235d0906111236u36b2fddfv8801f2acda41208c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: @Parker: You're right about the overlap. @Adi: That's a great 3-step plan. @Kevin: 15 or so schools to start off with is plenty. Thanks for starting the wiki article. Let's set this thing on fire! On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Kevin Donovan wrote: > Sorry that was unclear. I think Top 10 USNWR schools + 5 or so (likely with > SFC chapters) makes a lot of sense. For example, UMich doesn't fit either of > those, but surely deserves recognition for their great work with > open.umich.edu. > > I'm editing: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards to > get some thoughts down on this. > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Adi Kamdar wrote: > >> Wesley--heh, okay. >> >> Brian--I think Wesley's response sums it up nicely. We can (fairly) easily >> get the schools with FC chapters to devote some time into >> researching/grading their school, and conservatively we have 10 fairly >> popular, well known schools right there (with a lot of overlap with USNWR's >> top 10). Once we have criteria/our own schools graded, I think it wouldn't >> be too hard to expand from there. For example, you mentioned Michigan, which >> I know has an OCW program, and perhaps more?it's just a matter of digging a >> little or contacting the right people. Basically, we need 1) criteria/scale, >> 2) to grade ourselves, then 3) to grade others. I think this would be the >> most efficient. >> >> -Adi >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: >> >>> @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight?just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, >>> let's make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? >>> @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been >>> relatively active in the Free Culture >>> movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a great point about creating >>> viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools >>> as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for >>> ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts there >>> (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with >>> a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it >>> easier to hone our methodology and approach. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: >>> >>>> I am a little confused, are we looking for the top 10 open universities >>>> or are we rating the top 10 USWR schools on thier open status? >>>> >>>> If the latter we should also include at least 2 other schools that are >>>> in the 11-99 field, but might have better Open University scores, it would >>>> have much broader appeal and be more useful. If a student is attending a >>>> lower rated school it helps a lot to have a similarly rated school to point >>>> to as an example when trying to get ones own school to open up. Telling >>>> Seattle University that Yale, who is slightly better funded, is open is not >>>> as effective as telling them that Lewis and Clark which has the same budget >>>> is ahead of us on this issue. >>>> >>>> Here is one I would recommend including and one maybe: >>>> Michigan >>>> Lewis and Clark ? (their law school is great, I am not sure about their >>>> undergrad) >>>> >>>> -Brian >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a >>>>> basketful to deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at >>>>> first: Harvard, MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. >>>>> @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get a >>>>> lot of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: >>>>> Slashdot, Ars, digg, BB, etc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our >>>>>> ratings could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these >>>>>> schools. Anyone got great SEO skills? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this >>>>>> idea off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact >>>>>> change. >>>>>> >>>>>> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a >>>>>> large survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience >>>>>> suggested we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US >>>>>> News' Top 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will >>>>>> still force us to define the methodology and give us experience with the >>>>>> research process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have >>>>>> this, it could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger >>>>>> survey. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney < >>>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>>>>>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or >>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>>>>>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight >>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >>>>>>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall >>>>>>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I >>>>>>> can't >>>>>>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of >>>>>>> 1-5 >>>>>>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any >>>>>>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed >>>>>>> later. >>>>>>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is >>>>>>> worth >>>>>>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>>>>>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if >>>>>>> our >>>>>>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up >>>>>>> steam >>>>>>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < >>>>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>>>>>> University >>>>>>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I >>>>>>> > should be able to give you all more information about that soon >>>>>>> so >>>>>>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't >>>>>>> quite >>>>>>> > ready yet. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > - Alex >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan < >>>>>>> kdonovan11 at gmail.com >>>>>>> > kdonovan11 at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone >>>>>>> Open >>>>>>> > University Report site sounds great. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by >>>>>>> which we >>>>>>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross >>>>>>> index >>>>>>> > schools, >>>>>>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < >>>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when >>>>>>> I was at >>>>>>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>>>>>> little >>>>>>> > while back. >>>>>>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> > should try to >>>>>>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>>>>>> > grading criteria >>>>>>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>>>>>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is >>>>>>> clunky, >>>>>>> > and the >>>>>>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> > rundown for each >>>>>>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> > fun) to read >>>>>>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing >>>>>>> to the >>>>>>> > non-FC crowd >>>>>>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but >>>>>>> looking >>>>>>> > to identify >>>>>>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin >>>>>>> off >>>>>>> > and become its >>>>>>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, >>>>>>> but I >>>>>>> > think moving in >>>>>>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > ? W >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>>>>>> > > < gameguy43 at gmail.com >>>>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com>>wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we >>>>>>> still >>>>>>> > have a good >>>>>>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> > that time >>>>>>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once >>>>>>> controversially >>>>>>> > referred to >>>>>>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the >>>>>>> end >>>>>>> > of the >>>>>>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of >>>>>>> press >>>>>>> > release or >>>>>>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> > and what we've >>>>>>> > >> done. >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> -- >>>>>>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>>>>>> > >> madebyparker.com < >>>>>>> http://madebyparker.com> >>>>>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>> > >> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>> > Sent from my mobile device >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Kevin Donovan >>>>>>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>>> > 630.849.8285 >>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>> > Alex Kozak >>>>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu> >>>>>>> > 916.225.2718 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> D Parker Phinney >>>>>>> madebyparker.com >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Kevin Donovan >>>>>> Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>> 630.849.8285 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Brian Rowe >>>> Juris Doctorate >>>> Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge >>>> (206) 335-8577 (Cell) >>>> >>>> Public Knowledge >>>> www.publicknowledge.org >>>> >>>> Access To Justice Technology Principles >>>> www.ATJWeb.org >>>> >>>> Freedom for IP >>>> www.FreedomforIP.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at freeculture.org >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > > -- > Kevin Donovan > Georgetown '11: SFS > 630.849.8285 > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/8ab8292b/attachment-0001.htm From rich at anomos.info Thu Jun 11 16:02:03 2009 From: rich at anomos.info (Rich Jones) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:02:03 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Filmaster: Free Culture Netflix Message-ID: Sort of. It's an AGPL/CC movie recommendation service, like Netflix. I've been waiting for something like this for quite a while now and I'm glad somebody has made this, and it's AGPL as a bonus! The algorithms here are really interesting, dunno if any of you have ever looked at the Netflix prize before.. Anyway: http://filmaster.com/ Check it out. R From adikamdar at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 16:15:18 2009 From: adikamdar at gmail.com (Adi Kamdar) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:15:18 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> <684dbf750906111226y6b14f82k6bbde46189459df9@mail.gmail.com> <827235d0906111236u36b2fddfv8801f2acda41208c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <684dbf750906111315w26619cees29e27a0895ba2443@mail.gmail.com> I made a sample grading scheme using most (but not all!) of the criteria Kevin wrote down. I also made each one worth 1 point, though I have no clue if we want a point system or what. Please add to this, or change it, make it look nicer (i'm not the best with wikis...), or delete it! http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards#Sample_Grading_Scheme -Adi On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > @Parker: You're right about the overlap. > @Adi: That's a great 3-step plan. > @Kevin: 15 or so schools to start off with is plenty. Thanks for > starting the wiki article. Let's set this thing on fire! > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Kevin Donovan wrote: > >> Sorry that was unclear. I think Top 10 USNWR schools + 5 or so (likely >> with SFC chapters) makes a lot of sense. For example, UMich doesn't fit >> either of those, but surely deserves recognition for their great work with >> open.umich.edu. >> >> I'm editing: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards to >> get some thoughts down on this. >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Adi Kamdar wrote: >> >>> Wesley--heh, okay. >>> >>> Brian--I think Wesley's response sums it up nicely. We can (fairly) >>> easily get the schools with FC chapters to devote some time into >>> researching/grading their school, and conservatively we have 10 fairly >>> popular, well known schools right there (with a lot of overlap with USNWR's >>> top 10). Once we have criteria/our own schools graded, I think it wouldn't >>> be too hard to expand from there. For example, you mentioned Michigan, which >>> I know has an OCW program, and perhaps more?it's just a matter of digging a >>> little or contacting the right people. Basically, we need 1) criteria/scale, >>> 2) to grade ourselves, then 3) to grade others. I think this would be the >>> most efficient. >>> >>> -Adi >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: >>> >>>> @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight?just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, >>>> let's make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? >>>> @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been >>>> relatively active in the Free Culture >>>> movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a great point about creating >>>> viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools >>>> as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for >>>> ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts there >>>> (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with >>>> a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it >>>> easier to hone our methodology and approach. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am a little confused, are we looking for the top 10 open universities >>>>> or are we rating the top 10 USWR schools on thier open status? >>>>> >>>>> If the latter we should also include at least 2 other schools that are >>>>> in the 11-99 field, but might have better Open University scores, it would >>>>> have much broader appeal and be more useful. If a student is attending a >>>>> lower rated school it helps a lot to have a similarly rated school to point >>>>> to as an example when trying to get ones own school to open up. Telling >>>>> Seattle University that Yale, who is slightly better funded, is open is not >>>>> as effective as telling them that Lewis and Clark which has the same budget >>>>> is ahead of us on this issue. >>>>> >>>>> Here is one I would recommend including and one maybe: >>>>> Michigan >>>>> Lewis and Clark ? (their law school is great, I am not sure about their >>>>> undergrad) >>>>> >>>>> -Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen < >>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a >>>>>> basketful to deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at >>>>>> first: Harvard, MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. >>>>>> @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get >>>>>> a lot of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: >>>>>> Slashdot, Ars, digg, BB, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet < >>>>>> cducruet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our >>>>>>> ratings could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these >>>>>>> schools. Anyone got great SEO skills? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this >>>>>>> idea off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact >>>>>>> change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a >>>>>>> large survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience >>>>>>> suggested we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US >>>>>>> News' Top 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will >>>>>>> still force us to define the methodology and give us experience with the >>>>>>> research process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have >>>>>>> this, it could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger >>>>>>> survey. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney < >>>>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>>>>>>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or >>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>>>>>>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight >>>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >>>>>>>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the >>>>>>>> overall >>>>>>>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of >>>>>>>> 1-5 >>>>>>>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed >>>>>>>> later. >>>>>>>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is >>>>>>>> worth >>>>>>>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>>>>>>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up >>>>>>>> steam >>>>>>>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < >>>>>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> > should be able to give you all more information about that >>>>>>>> soon so >>>>>>>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't >>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>> > ready yet. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > - Alex >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan < >>>>>>>> kdonovan11 at gmail.com >>>>>>>> > kdonovan11 at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone >>>>>>>> Open >>>>>>>> > University Report site sounds great. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by >>>>>>>> which we >>>>>>>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross >>>>>>>> index >>>>>>>> > schools, >>>>>>>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < >>>>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when >>>>>>>> I was at >>>>>>>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>> > while back. >>>>>>>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> > should try to >>>>>>>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>>>>>>> > grading criteria >>>>>>>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>>>>>>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is >>>>>>>> clunky, >>>>>>>> > and the >>>>>>>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about >>>>>>>> creating a >>>>>>>> > rundown for each >>>>>>>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> > fun) to read >>>>>>>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> > non-FC crowd >>>>>>>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but >>>>>>>> looking >>>>>>>> > to identify >>>>>>>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin >>>>>>>> off >>>>>>>> > and become its >>>>>>>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, >>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>> > think moving in >>>>>>>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > ? W >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>> > > < gameguy43 at gmail.com >>>>>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com>>wrote: >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we >>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>> > have a good >>>>>>>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending >>>>>>>> part of >>>>>>>> > that time >>>>>>>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once >>>>>>>> controversially >>>>>>>> > referred to >>>>>>>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by >>>>>>>> the end >>>>>>>> > of the >>>>>>>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of >>>>>>>> press >>>>>>>> > release or >>>>>>>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> > and what we've >>>>>>>> > >> done. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> -- >>>>>>>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>> > >> madebyparker.com < >>>>>>>> http://madebyparker.com> >>>>>>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> > >> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > Sent from my mobile device >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Kevin Donovan >>>>>>>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>>>> > 630.849.8285 >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > Alex Kozak >>>>>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu> >>>>>>>> > 916.225.2718 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>> madebyparker.com >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Kevin Donovan >>>>>>> Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>>> 630.849.8285 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Brian Rowe >>>>> Juris Doctorate >>>>> Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge >>>>> (206) 335-8577 (Cell) >>>>> >>>>> Public Knowledge >>>>> www.publicknowledge.org >>>>> >>>>> Access To Justice Technology Principles >>>>> www.ATJWeb.org >>>>> >>>>> Freedom for IP >>>>> www.FreedomforIP.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Donovan >> Georgetown '11: SFS >> 630.849.8285 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/4054cd0e/attachment-0001.htm From akozak at berkeley.edu Thu Jun 11 16:21:53 2009 From: akozak at berkeley.edu (Alex Kozak) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:21:53 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> <684dbf750906111226y6b14f82k6bbde46189459df9@mail.gmail.com> <827235d0906111236u36b2fddfv8801f2acda41208c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: For those of you interested: http://opened.creativecommons.org/UCOP I'd be careful editing anything, there is a legal intern working on it and the form is not totally finished or working as desired. Let me know if you have any comments/suggestions! - Alex On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > @Parker: You're right about the overlap. > @Adi: That's a great 3-step plan. > @Kevin: 15 or so schools to start off with is plenty. Thanks for > starting the wiki article. Let's set this thing on fire! > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Kevin Donovan wrote: > >> Sorry that was unclear. I think Top 10 USNWR schools + 5 or so (likely >> with SFC chapters) makes a lot of sense. For example, UMich doesn't fit >> either of those, but surely deserves recognition for their great work with >> open.umich.edu. >> >> I'm editing: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards to >> get some thoughts down on this. >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Adi Kamdar wrote: >> >>> Wesley--heh, okay. >>> >>> Brian--I think Wesley's response sums it up nicely. We can (fairly) >>> easily get the schools with FC chapters to devote some time into >>> researching/grading their school, and conservatively we have 10 fairly >>> popular, well known schools right there (with a lot of overlap with USNWR's >>> top 10). Once we have criteria/our own schools graded, I think it wouldn't >>> be too hard to expand from there. For example, you mentioned Michigan, which >>> I know has an OCW program, and perhaps more?it's just a matter of digging a >>> little or contacting the right people. Basically, we need 1) criteria/scale, >>> 2) to grade ourselves, then 3) to grade others. I think this would be the >>> most efficient. >>> >>> -Adi >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: >>> >>>> @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight?just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, >>>> let's make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? >>>> @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been >>>> relatively active in the Free Culture >>>> movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a great point about creating >>>> viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools >>>> as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for >>>> ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts there >>>> (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with >>>> a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it >>>> easier to hone our methodology and approach. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am a little confused, are we looking for the top 10 open universities >>>>> or are we rating the top 10 USWR schools on thier open status? >>>>> >>>>> If the latter we should also include at least 2 other schools that are >>>>> in the 11-99 field, but might have better Open University scores, it would >>>>> have much broader appeal and be more useful. If a student is attending a >>>>> lower rated school it helps a lot to have a similarly rated school to point >>>>> to as an example when trying to get ones own school to open up. Telling >>>>> Seattle University that Yale, who is slightly better funded, is open is not >>>>> as effective as telling them that Lewis and Clark which has the same budget >>>>> is ahead of us on this issue. >>>>> >>>>> Here is one I would recommend including and one maybe: >>>>> Michigan >>>>> Lewis and Clark ? (their law school is great, I am not sure about their >>>>> undergrad) >>>>> >>>>> -Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen < >>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a >>>>>> basketful to deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at >>>>>> first: Harvard, MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. >>>>>> @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get >>>>>> a lot of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: >>>>>> Slashdot, Ars, digg, BB, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet < >>>>>> cducruet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our >>>>>>> ratings could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these >>>>>>> schools. Anyone got great SEO skills? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this >>>>>>> idea off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact >>>>>>> change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a >>>>>>> large survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience >>>>>>> suggested we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US >>>>>>> News' Top 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will >>>>>>> still force us to define the methodology and give us experience with the >>>>>>> research process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have >>>>>>> this, it could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger >>>>>>> survey. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney < >>>>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>>>>>>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or >>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>>>>>>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight >>>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >>>>>>>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the >>>>>>>> overall >>>>>>>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale of >>>>>>>> 1-5 >>>>>>>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed >>>>>>>> later. >>>>>>>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is >>>>>>>> worth >>>>>>>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>>>>>>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up >>>>>>>> steam >>>>>>>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < >>>>>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> > should be able to give you all more information about that >>>>>>>> soon so >>>>>>>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't >>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>> > ready yet. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > - Alex >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan < >>>>>>>> kdonovan11 at gmail.com >>>>>>>> > kdonovan11 at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone >>>>>>>> Open >>>>>>>> > University Report site sounds great. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by >>>>>>>> which we >>>>>>>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross >>>>>>>> index >>>>>>>> > schools, >>>>>>>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < >>>>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when >>>>>>>> I was at >>>>>>>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>> > while back. >>>>>>>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> > should try to >>>>>>>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>>>>>>> > grading criteria >>>>>>>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>>>>>>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is >>>>>>>> clunky, >>>>>>>> > and the >>>>>>>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about >>>>>>>> creating a >>>>>>>> > rundown for each >>>>>>>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> > fun) to read >>>>>>>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> > non-FC crowd >>>>>>>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but >>>>>>>> looking >>>>>>>> > to identify >>>>>>>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin >>>>>>>> off >>>>>>>> > and become its >>>>>>>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, >>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>> > think moving in >>>>>>>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > ? W >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>> > > < gameguy43 at gmail.com >>>>>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com>>wrote: >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we >>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>> > have a good >>>>>>>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending >>>>>>>> part of >>>>>>>> > that time >>>>>>>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once >>>>>>>> controversially >>>>>>>> > referred to >>>>>>>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by >>>>>>>> the end >>>>>>>> > of the >>>>>>>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of >>>>>>>> press >>>>>>>> > release or >>>>>>>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> > and what we've >>>>>>>> > >> done. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> -- >>>>>>>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>> > >> madebyparker.com < >>>>>>>> http://madebyparker.com> >>>>>>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> > >> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > Sent from my mobile device >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Kevin Donovan >>>>>>>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>>>> > 630.849.8285 >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > Alex Kozak >>>>>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu> >>>>>>>> > 916.225.2718 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>> madebyparker.com >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Kevin Donovan >>>>>>> Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>>> 630.849.8285 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Brian Rowe >>>>> Juris Doctorate >>>>> Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge >>>>> (206) 335-8577 (Cell) >>>>> >>>>> Public Knowledge >>>>> www.publicknowledge.org >>>>> >>>>> Access To Justice Technology Principles >>>>> www.ATJWeb.org >>>>> >>>>> Freedom for IP >>>>> www.FreedomforIP.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Donovan >> Georgetown '11: SFS >> 630.849.8285 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 akozak at berkeley.edu 916.225.2718 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/e393ae5d/attachment-0001.htm From greg at grossmeier.net Thu Jun 11 16:27:32 2009 From: greg at grossmeier.net (Greg Grossmeier) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:27:32 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <684dbf750906111226y6b14f82k6bbde46189459df9@mail.gmail.com> References: <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> <684dbf750906111226y6b14f82k6bbde46189459df9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090611202732.GC6461@foucault> > For example, you mentioned Michigan, which > I know has an OCW program, and perhaps more?it's just a matter of digging a > little or contacting the right people. Basically, we need 1) criteria/scale, > 2) to grade ourselves, then 3) to grade others. I think this would be the > most efficient. Yep, we do have an OER program (which I work on) and do much much much more in the realm of Open. See: http://open.umich.edu and specifically https://open.umich.edu/projects/ I haven't followed this thread really closely, but if you have any other specific questions, ask them and I (or someone else here) will respond. -Greg From kdonovan11 at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 16:29:54 2009 From: kdonovan11 at gmail.com (Kevin Donovan) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:29:54 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <684dbf750906111315w26619cees29e27a0895ba2443@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F259D8.4070905@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> <684dbf750906111226y6b14f82k6bbde46189459df9@mail.gmail.com> <827235d0906111236u36b2fddfv8801f2acda41208c@mail.gmail.com> <684dbf750906111315w26619cees29e27a0895ba2443@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <827235d0906111329o381c235bs8df157c6d6f419d3@mail.gmail.com> Great start, Adi. Have a couple thoughts that I've put in the "Discussion" page (your parts in blockquotes, mine not). Shall we schedule a call to discuss this? Probably easier. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Adi Kamdar wrote: > I made a sample grading scheme using most (but not all!) of the criteria > Kevin wrote down. I also made each one worth 1 point, though I have no clue > if we want a point system or what. Please add to this, or change it, make it > look nicer (i'm not the best with wikis...), or delete it! > > > http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards#Sample_Grading_Scheme > > -Adi > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > >> @Parker: You're right about the overlap. >> @Adi: That's a great 3-step plan. >> @Kevin: 15 or so schools to start off with is plenty. Thanks for >> starting the wiki article. Let's set this thing on fire! >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Kevin Donovan wrote: >> >>> Sorry that was unclear. I think Top 10 USNWR schools + 5 or so (likely >>> with SFC chapters) makes a lot of sense. For example, UMich doesn't fit >>> either of those, but surely deserves recognition for their great work with >>> open.umich.edu. >>> >>> I'm editing: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards to >>> get some thoughts down on this. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Adi Kamdar wrote: >>> >>>> Wesley--heh, okay. >>>> >>>> Brian--I think Wesley's response sums it up nicely. We can (fairly) >>>> easily get the schools with FC chapters to devote some time into >>>> researching/grading their school, and conservatively we have 10 fairly >>>> popular, well known schools right there (with a lot of overlap with USNWR's >>>> top 10). Once we have criteria/our own schools graded, I think it wouldn't >>>> be too hard to expand from there. For example, you mentioned Michigan, which >>>> I know has an OCW program, and perhaps more?it's just a matter of digging a >>>> little or contacting the right people. Basically, we need 1) criteria/scale, >>>> 2) to grade ourselves, then 3) to grade others. I think this would be the >>>> most efficient. >>>> >>>> -Adi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Wesley Chen >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight?just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, >>>>> let's make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? >>>>> @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been >>>>> relatively active in the Free Culture >>>>> movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a great point about creating >>>>> viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools >>>>> as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for >>>>> ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts there >>>>> (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with >>>>> a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it >>>>> easier to hone our methodology and approach. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am a little confused, are we looking for the top 10 open >>>>>> universities or are we rating the top 10 USWR schools on thier open status? >>>>>> >>>>>> If the latter we should also include at least 2 other schools that are >>>>>> in the 11-99 field, but might have better Open University scores, it would >>>>>> have much broader appeal and be more useful. If a student is attending a >>>>>> lower rated school it helps a lot to have a similarly rated school to point >>>>>> to as an example when trying to get ones own school to open up. Telling >>>>>> Seattle University that Yale, who is slightly better funded, is open is not >>>>>> as effective as telling them that Lewis and Clark which has the same budget >>>>>> is ahead of us on this issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is one I would recommend including and one maybe: >>>>>> Michigan >>>>>> Lewis and Clark ? (their law school is great, I am not sure about >>>>>> their undergrad) >>>>>> >>>>>> -Brian >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen < >>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a >>>>>>> basketful to deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at >>>>>>> first: Harvard, MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. >>>>>>> @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get >>>>>>> a lot of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: >>>>>>> Slashdot, Ars, digg, BB, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet < >>>>>>> cducruet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our >>>>>>>> ratings could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these >>>>>>>> schools. Anyone got great SEO skills? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this >>>>>>>> idea off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact >>>>>>>> change. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a >>>>>>>> large survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience >>>>>>>> suggested we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US >>>>>>>> News' Top 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will >>>>>>>> still force us to define the methodology and give us experience with the >>>>>>>> research process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have >>>>>>>> this, it could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger >>>>>>>> survey. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney < >>>>>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>>>>>>>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or >>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>>>>>>>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight >>>>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>>>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or >>>>>>>>> Network >>>>>>>>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions >>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the >>>>>>>>> university in >>>>>>>>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the >>>>>>>>> overall >>>>>>>>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, >>>>>>>>> I can't >>>>>>>>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment?using a scale >>>>>>>>> of 1-5 >>>>>>>>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield >>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed >>>>>>>>> later. >>>>>>>>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > **@Christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is >>>>>>>>> worth >>>>>>>>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>>>>>>>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if >>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I >>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking >>>>>>>>> up steam >>>>>>>>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < >>>>>>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>>>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> > should be able to give you all more information about that >>>>>>>>> soon so >>>>>>>>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't >>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>> > ready yet. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > - Alex >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan < >>>>>>>>> kdonovan11 at gmail.com >>>>>>>>> > kdonovan11 at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone >>>>>>>>> Open >>>>>>>>> > University Report site sounds great. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by >>>>>>>>> which we >>>>>>>>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross >>>>>>>>> index >>>>>>>>> > schools, >>>>>>>>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < >>>>>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wesley at freeculturenyu.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting >>>>>>>>> when I was at >>>>>>>>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>>> > while back. >>>>>>>>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea >>>>>>>>> that we >>>>>>>>> > should try to >>>>>>>>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>>>>>>>> > grading criteria >>>>>>>>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>>>>>>>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is >>>>>>>>> clunky, >>>>>>>>> > and the >>>>>>>>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about >>>>>>>>> creating a >>>>>>>>> > rundown for each >>>>>>>>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier >>>>>>>>> (and more >>>>>>>>> > fun) to read >>>>>>>>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing >>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>> > non-FC crowd >>>>>>>>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but >>>>>>>>> looking >>>>>>>>> > to identify >>>>>>>>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin >>>>>>>>> off >>>>>>>>> > and become its >>>>>>>>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, >>>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>>> > think moving in >>>>>>>>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > ? W >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>>> > > < gameguy43 at gmail.com >>>>>>>>> gameguy43 at gmail.com>>wrote: >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we >>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>> > have a good >>>>>>>>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending >>>>>>>>> part of >>>>>>>>> > that time >>>>>>>>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once >>>>>>>>> controversially >>>>>>>>> > referred to >>>>>>>>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by >>>>>>>>> the end >>>>>>>>> > of the >>>>>>>>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of >>>>>>>>> press >>>>>>>>> > release or >>>>>>>>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> > and what we've >>>>>>>>> > >> done. >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent >>>>>>>>> one. >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> -- >>>>>>>>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>>> > >> madebyparker.com < >>>>>>>>> http://madebyparker.com> >>>>>>>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>> > >> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>>> > Sent from my mobile device >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Kevin Donovan >>>>>>>>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>>>>> > 630.849.8285 >>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>>> > Alex Kozak >>>>>>>>> > akozak at berkeley.edu >>>>>>>>> akozak at berkeley.edu> >>>>>>>>> > 916.225.2718 >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>> > Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>>> madebyparker.com >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Kevin Donovan >>>>>>>> Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>>>> 630.849.8285 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Brian Rowe >>>>>> Juris Doctorate >>>>>> Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge >>>>>> (206) 335-8577 (Cell) >>>>>> >>>>>> Public Knowledge >>>>>> www.publicknowledge.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Access To Justice Technology Principles >>>>>> www.ATJWeb.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Freedom for IP >>>>>> www.FreedomforIP.org >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> Discuss at freeculture.org >>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kevin Donovan >>> Georgetown '11: SFS >>> 630.849.8285 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/542523e4/attachment-0001.htm From kdonovan11 at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 16:32:38 2009 From: kdonovan11 at gmail.com (Kevin Donovan) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:32:38 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University "Report Cards" In-Reply-To: <20090611202732.GC6461@foucault> References: <827235d0906051030g44b0221dic900e2e68cefe0bb@mail.gmail.com> <4A2AC5F9.7000702@gmail.com> <827235d0906110850p1f11b714r3378fad7b53d7016@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906111157u6932d8a6mf5ba7a97e0c3e712@mail.gmail.com> <684dbf750906111226y6b14f82k6bbde46189459df9@mail.gmail.com> <20090611202732.GC6461@foucault> Message-ID: <827235d0906111332x2b896d4csb3c06971976c3670@mail.gmail.com> Thanks, Greg. You guys are doing great work and I look forward to connecting over this. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Greg Grossmeier wrote: > > > > For example, you mentioned Michigan, which > > I know has an OCW program, and perhaps more?it's just a matter of digging > a > > little or contacting the right people. Basically, we need 1) > criteria/scale, > > 2) to grade ourselves, then 3) to grade others. I think this would be the > > most efficient. > > Yep, we do have an OER program (which I work on) and do much much much > more in the realm of Open. > > See: http://open.umich.edu and specifically > https://open.umich.edu/projects/ > > I haven't followed this thread really closely, but if you have any > other specific questions, ask them and I (or someone else here) will > respond. > > -Greg > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/4ea14a20/attachment.htm From kdonovan11 at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 16:37:43 2009 From: kdonovan11 at gmail.com (Kevin Donovan) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:37:43 +0000 Subject: [FC-discuss] New Blackboard Executive Starts Blog, Promising New Culture of Openness Message-ID: <00163642716054a77f046c1890ba@google.com> Sent to you by Kevin Donovan via Google Reader: New Blackboard Executive Starts Blog, Promising New Culture of Openness via The Chronicle: Wired Campus Blog by Jeff Young on 6/11/09 The new head of Blackboard Inc.?s course-management-software division, Ray Henderson, started a blog this week, and he?s already facing tough questions from critics. Mr. Henderson was given the job last month after Blackboard bought Angel Learning, where Mr. Henderson had led product development. Many Angel clients expressed anger at the deal but praise for the appointment of Mr. Henderson to a high position in Blackboard?s ranks. Eager to prove that he plans to bring change to Blackboard, Mr. Henderson declared that his blog is a sign of more transparent times. ?Me joining the company means we?re going to communicate more often and more openly,? he wrote in his opening post on Tuesday. ?I?m excited about having a spot where I can muse out loud about my take on various things in eLearning, and have other folks weigh in with theirs,? he added. ?In particular, I?ve got lots to say on the whole openness, standards, interoperability question.? He allows comments on the blog, though he says he is moderating them before they go live. ?I?m dipping my toe in the previously uncharted waters for Blackboard of having comments turned on in this blog,? he explained in a note on the blog. ?Not revolutionary I know and really required for an interesting exchange. But a new step for Blackboard nonetheless and one we?re taking gradually.? Still, Mr. Henderson has allowed plenty of critical voices on the site so far. ?Tell your new Blackboard colleagues to drop the lawsuit with D2L,? wrote one commenter, referring to the company?s patent-infringement lawsuit against Desire2Learn, another company making course-management software. ?Start putting education (not litigation) first.? Another commenter said that Blackboard promised more open communication with customers last time it bought a rival, when it bought WebCT in 2007, but did not deliver. The blog commenter asked: ?Why should we believe what you are saying this time?? Mr. Henderson wrote a reply today to some of the questions. He punted on the patent issue: ?Step one for me is to educate myself on this matter. Until I do so it?s not something I?ll talk about here.? And he closed with a cliffhanger: ?To the question about what?s new this time around as Bb and ANGEL come together, there are some really important differences that I?ll be addressing directly in the next week or two.? We?ll stay tuned. ?Jeffrey R. Young Things you can do from here: - Subscribe to The Chronicle: Wired Campus Blog using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090611/1de3cf84/attachment.htm From ccowens at vt.edu Tue Jun 16 07:59:32 2009 From: ccowens at vt.edu (Clifford Conley Owens III) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:59:32 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Filmaster: Free Culture Netflix In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A378924.1060007@vt.edu> Rich Jones wrote: > Sort of. It's an AGPL/CC movie recommendation service, like Netflix. > I've been waiting for something like this for quite a while now and > I'm glad somebody has made this, and it's AGPL as a bonus! The > algorithms here are really interesting, dunno if any of you have ever > looked at the Netflix prize before.. > > Anyway: http://filmaster.com/ Sounds cool, but I'm having trouble finding any agpl source code. There's nothing that seems to suggest that they are agpl apart from a link to autonomo.us ~Conley From andy at kaplan-myrth.ca Tue Jun 16 10:07:55 2009 From: andy at kaplan-myrth.ca (Andy Kaplan-Myrth) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:07:55 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Filmaster: Free Culture Netflix In-Reply-To: <4A378924.1060007@vt.edu> References: <4A378924.1060007@vt.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Clifford Conley Owens III wrote: > Rich Jones wrote: >> It's an AGPL/CC movie recommendation service, like Netflix. >> I've been waiting for something like this for quite a while now and >> I'm glad somebody has made this, and it's AGPL as a bonus! >> >> Anyway: http://filmaster.com/ > > Sounds cool, but I'm having trouble finding any agpl source code. > There's nothing that seems to suggest that they are agpl apart from a > link to autonomo.us The licence on the code is described on their Cooperation page [1] and the CC-BY licence on the content is on the Licence page [2]. There's a developer site as well at filmaster.org [3]. [1] http://filmaster.com/cooperation/ [2] http://filmaster.com/license/ [3] http://filmaster.org/ It looks like a great initiative! Cheers, Andy From memshankar at gmail.com Tue Jun 16 14:25:01 2009 From: memshankar at gmail.com (Shankar Pokharel) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:10:01 +0545 Subject: [FC-discuss] Suggestions for new Constitution on digital liberties Message-ID: <116089960906161125x2852ea3fsc39671fff1622e0d@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, Nepal's Constituent Assembly is drafting a new constitution for the country. We are interacting with various committees of the Assembly regarding the issues to be included in the new constitution. Especially, the "Fundamental Rights Determination Committee" is seeking our suggestions in the form of a written document so that they can discuss it in their meeting next week. We have informed them informally of our concerns for addressing digital liberties and ensuring them as fundamental rights in the constitution. We'd also like to see the right to privacy, anonymity and access public information regardless of the technology (platforms/software). Whether or not our suggestions will be incorporated depends on public hearings and voting in the assembly later, but the document we submit will be archived for use as reference material in the future when amendments in the constitution will be discussed or new laws will be prepared. I would be very grateful if you could suggest me on where to ask for suggestions on this topic (mailing list, individuals etc). If you could forward this mail to anybody who could provide us with feedbacks, that'd be great help too. Also, if you have something to suggest, please do. We're committed to do everything we can to make sure that in the future Nepal becomes a country where digital liberties are respected. It's my personal dream to make our constitution model for all other developing (or otherwise) countries as far as digital liberties are concerned. I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks, Shankar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090617/40560d8c/attachment.htm From jays at panix.com Tue Jun 16 15:31:06 2009 From: jays at panix.com (Jay Sulzberger) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [FC-discuss] Suggestions for new Constitution on digital liberties In-Reply-To: <116089960906161125x2852ea3fsc39671fff1622e0d@mail.gmail.com> References: <116089960906161125x2852ea3fsc39671fff1622e0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Shankar Pokharel wrote: > Dear All, > > Nepal's Constituent Assembly is drafting a new constitution for > the country. We are interacting with various committees of the > Assembly regarding the issues to be included in the new > constitution. Especially, the "Fundamental Rights Determination > Committee" is seeking our suggestions in the form of a written > document so that they can discuss it in their meeting next > week. We have informed them informally of our concerns for > addressing digital liberties and ensuring them as fundamental > rights in the constitution. We'd also like to see the right to > privacy, anonymity and access public information regardless of > the technology (platforms/software). Whether or not our > suggestions will be incorporated depends on public hearings and > voting in the assembly later, but the document we submit will > be archived for use as reference material in the future when > amendments in the constitution will be discussed or new laws > will be prepared. If the OS you run is source secret, then you do not have root on the box. Only free software defends open standards. Only free software defends the right of private ownership of a computer. All source secret End User License Agreements deny the user the right to know what is running on the computer. All source secret EULAs deny users the right to cooperate in repairing and improving the software. All source secret EULAs explicitly create a monopoly on repair and improvement of the software. All source secret EULAs for operating systems generally and explicitly prevent interoperability, except as granted by the licenser, and such grants may be withdrawn at the whim of the licenser, without recourse for the licensees. Often, even free software running on top of a source secret OS is crippled because of the legal and practical restrictions on study, repair, and improvement of the source secret OS. > > I would be very grateful if you could suggest me on where to > ask for suggestions on this topic (mailing list, individuals > etc). If you could forward this mail to anybody who could > provide us with feedbacks, that'd be great help too. Also, if > you have something to suggest, please do. We're committed to do > everything we can to make sure that in the future Nepal becomes > a country where digital liberties are respected. It's my > personal dream to make our constitution model for all other > developing (or otherwise) countries as far as digital liberties > are concerned. > > I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon. > > Thanks, > Shankar Thanks, Shankar! I have sent a copy of your post to Richard Stallman. http://www.fsf.org oo--JS. From gameguy43 at gmail.com Tue Jun 16 15:49:05 2009 From: gameguy43 at gmail.com (D Parker Phinney) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:49:05 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Suggestions for new Constitution on digital liberties In-Reply-To: References: <116089960906161125x2852ea3fsc39671fff1622e0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A37F731.7070508@gmail.com> This is good news! I personally am very interested in chatting more about specifics, by email or by other means, and i'm sure some lots of other people on this mailing list would be as well. it may or may not be related to what you are interested in, but are you familiar with creative commons (creativecommons.org)? It may be worth looking at their website to become familiar with issues relating to creativity, remix, and copyright law. i'd also recommend taking a look at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition which is very useful for very clear definitions, which may be what you need in drafting a constitution. keep in touch! Jay Sulzberger wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Shankar Pokharel wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Nepal's Constituent Assembly is drafting a new constitution for >> the country. We are interacting with various committees of the >> Assembly regarding the issues to be included in the new >> constitution. Especially, the "Fundamental Rights Determination >> Committee" is seeking our suggestions in the form of a written >> document so that they can discuss it in their meeting next >> week. We have informed them informally of our concerns for >> addressing digital liberties and ensuring them as fundamental >> rights in the constitution. We'd also like to see the right to >> privacy, anonymity and access public information regardless of >> the technology (platforms/software). Whether or not our >> suggestions will be incorporated depends on public hearings and >> voting in the assembly later, but the document we submit will >> be archived for use as reference material in the future when >> amendments in the constitution will be discussed or new laws >> will be prepared. > > If the OS you run is source secret, then you do not have root on > the box. > > Only free software defends open standards. > > Only free software defends the right of private ownership of a > computer. > > All source secret End User License Agreements deny the user the > right to know what is running on the computer. All source secret > EULAs deny users the right to cooperate in repairing and > improving the software. All source secret EULAs explicitly > create a monopoly on repair and improvement of the software. All > source secret EULAs for operating systems generally and > explicitly prevent interoperability, except as granted by the > licenser, and such grants may be withdrawn at the whim of the > licenser, without recourse for the licensees. Often, even free > software running on top of a source secret OS is crippled because > of the legal and practical restrictions on study, repair, and > improvement of the source secret OS. > >> I would be very grateful if you could suggest me on where to >> ask for suggestions on this topic (mailing list, individuals >> etc). If you could forward this mail to anybody who could >> provide us with feedbacks, that'd be great help too. Also, if >> you have something to suggest, please do. We're committed to do >> everything we can to make sure that in the future Nepal becomes >> a country where digital liberties are respected. It's my >> personal dream to make our constitution model for all other >> developing (or otherwise) countries as far as digital liberties >> are concerned. >> >> I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon. >> >> Thanks, >> Shankar > > Thanks, Shankar! > > I have sent a copy of your post to Richard Stallman. > > http://www.fsf.org > > oo--JS. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- D Parker Phinney madebyparker.com From gavin at gavinbaker.com Tue Jun 16 18:15:45 2009 From: gavin at gavinbaker.com (Gavin Baker) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:15:45 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Mozilla Service Week, September 14-21, 2009 Message-ID: <4A381991.2020104@gavinbaker.com> Consider starting the fall semester with a FOSS service project: http://serviceweek.mozilla.org/ -- Gavin Baker http://www.gavinbaker.com/ gavin at gavinbaker.com I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. Martin Luther King, Jr. From michuk at filmaster.com Wed Jun 17 09:27:54 2009 From: michuk at filmaster.com (Borys Musielak) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:27:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [FC-discuss] Filmaster: Free Culture Netflix References: <4A378924.1060007@vt.edu> Message-ID: Andy Kaplan-Myrth kaplan-myrth.ca> writes: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Clifford Conley Owens > III vt.edu> wrote: > > Rich Jones wrote: > >> It's an AGPL/CC movie recommendation service, like Netflix. > >> I've been waiting for something like this for quite a while now and > >> I'm glad somebody has made this, and it's AGPL as a bonus! > >> > >> Anyway: http://filmaster.com/ > > > > Sounds cool, but I'm having trouble finding any agpl source code. > > There's nothing that seems to suggest that they are agpl apart from a > > link to autonomo.us > > The licence on the code is described on their Cooperation page [1] and > the CC-BY licence on the content is on the Licence page [2]. There's a > developer site as well at filmaster.org [3]. > > [1] http://filmaster.com/cooperation/ > [2] http://filmaster.com/license/ > [3] http://filmaster.org/ > > It looks like a great initiative! Borys from Filmaster here. Thanks for mentioning our project! Just to clarify a bit: The code is downloadable from the public SVN repo, just follow this link: http://filmaster.org/display/DEV/Obtaining+the+code All our original stuff is licensed under AGPLv3. There is a lot of code on BSD lincese as well, mostly borrowed from the great Pinax Project: http://pinaxproject.com If any of you guys know django/python, you're very welcome to join the development team. We're got plenty of tasks on schedule, just check out: http://jira.filmaster.org We're also in the process of localizing the website into multiple languages. The translation is done using the pootle instance here: http://filmaster.com:6666 and we already have Polish, Catalan and Spanish translations finished. French, Norwegian and Dunch are in progress right now. You can also read the interview I gave to Dan Lynch from Linux Outlaws here: http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/06/filmaster/ It's not just a recommendation engine. It's a proper social network for film buffs :) Just drop me a note if you'd like to know more! Borys Musielak Jabber: michuk at jakilinux.org E-mail: michuk at filmaster.com Identi.ca: http://identi.ca/michuk From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Wed Jun 17 14:05:36 2009 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:05:36 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] EFF, PK Drop ACTA Suit -- Anyone to Take Up the Case Now? References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A393070.7144A6AE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Not sure what's going on here -- and what I'm saying here is no reflection on these two key leading groups -- but the policy, constitutional, legal issues here need to be kept alive and hot. Some of us need to be invited to the table, some of us don't. This is how to go through this test and retain the constitutional principle(s). Is there anyone or group that will bring a case and keep it active until 1) ACTA is exposed and 2) the "National Security" notion is rebutted soundly? Seth > http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/06/17 EFF and Public Knowledge Reluctantly Drop Lawsuit for Information About ACTA Government's 'National Security' Claims Keep IP Treaty Under Wraps June 17th, 2009 Washington, D.C. - The Obama Administration's decision to support Bush-era concealment policies has forced the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge (PK) to drop their lawsuit about the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). EFF and PK had been seeking important documents about the secret intellectual property enforcement treaty that has broad implications for global privacy and innovation. Federal judges have very little discretion to overrule Executive Branch decisions to classify information on "national security" grounds, and the Obama Administration has recently informed the court that it intends to defend the classification claims originally made by the Bush Administration. "We're extremely disappointed that we have to end our lawsuit, but there is no point in continuing it if we're not going to obtain information before ACTA is finalized," said EFF International Policy Director Gwen Hinze. "There's a fundamental fairness issue at stake here. It's now clear that the negotiating texts and background documents for this trade agreement have been made available to representatives of major media copyright owners and pharmaceutical companies on the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property. Yet private citizens -- who stand to be greatly affected by ACTA -- have had to rely on unofficial leaks for any substantive information about the treaty and have had no opportunity for meaningful input into the negotiation process. This can hardly be described as transparent or balanced policy-making." "Even though we have reluctantly dropped this lawsuit, we will continue to press the U.S. Trade Representative and the Obama Administration on the ACTA issues," said Public Knowledge Deputy Legal Director Sherwin Siy. "The issues are too far-reaching and too important to allow this important agreement to be negotiated behind closed doors," he added. Very little is known about ACTA, currently under negotiation between the U.S. and more than a dozen other countries, other than that it is not limited to anti-counterfeiting measures. Leaked documents indicate that it could establish far-reaching customs regulations governing searches over personal computers and iPods. Multi-national IP corporations have publicly requested mandatory filtering of Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, as well as the adoption of "Three Strikes" policies requiring the termination of Internet access after repeat allegations of copyright infringement, like the legislation recently invalidated in France. Last year, more than 100 public interest organizations around the world called on ACTA country negotiators to make the draft text available for public comment. EFF and Public Knowledge first filed suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in September of 2008 demanding that background documents on ACTA be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Rather than pursuing a lawsuit with little chance of forcing the disclosure of key ACTA documents, EFF and Public Knowledge will devote their efforts to advocating for consumer representation on the U.S. Industry Trade Advisory Committee on IP, the creation of a civil society trade advisory committee, and greater government transparency about what ACTA means for citizens. For more on this case: http://www.eff.org/cases/eff-and-public-knowledge-v-ustr For more on ACTA: http://www.eff.org/issues/acta Contacts: David Sobel Senior Counsel Electronic Frontier Foundation sobel at eff.org Gwen Hinze International Policy Director Electronic Frontier Foundation gwen at eff.org Art Brodsky Communications Director Public Knowledge abrodsky at publicknowledge.org From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Wed Jun 17 19:35:23 2009 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:35:23 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Andy Oram: 4 Roles for Non-Gatekeeper Publishers References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A397DBB.C0BE3A79@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Andy comments on roles for publishers in changing technology landscape, related to information quality: 1) Proofing for grammar, syntax, and consistency of usage; 2) Fact-checking; 3) Editing unclear and ambiguous passages; 4) Integrating facets of a large-scale text -- Seth) > http://toc.oreilly.com/2009/06/four-roles-for-publishers-stay.html Four roles for publishers: staying relevant when you are no longer a gatekeeper By Andy Oram June 17, 2009 Bookbuilders of Boston, a nonprofit membership organization for publishing professionals, held a panel on June 11 about open publishing. It attracted an usually large number of attendees--about 60--revealing the curiosity its members have toward the potential changes created by this movement. I was one of the panelists, along with managers from MIT Press and Harvard University Press. In addition to a discussion of the core topic of open publishing--that is, distributing documents free of charge, often under a license that permits free alteration and distribution--I laid out a larger vision that places the publisher in a context where contributors hold conversations online and share large amounts of material freely among themselves. That vision is the center of the following remarks. When trade publishers are invited to speak, we seem to be expected to follow a certain script. We must stress the importance of finding new ways to distribute and market our material online. We have to point out that only 15% of a book's cost goes to shipping and printing. We champion the importance of supporting authors financially, shed a tear or two for our sister industry, journalism, and so on. When staff from O'Reilly Media are invited to speak, we defy expectations by throwing out all of that stuff, talking instead about the excitement exploring new technologies that can change people's lives, about working together to educate each other, about how sharing information in communities can help us all grow. This is the open source movement in a nutshell, as it were. Tonight I'll take a somewhat in-between position: I'll talk about business models, but from the standpoint of open online content. The bedrock principle in this environment is that the publisher is no longer a gatekeeper. Anything can go online to be linked to, rated, berated, or anything else people want to do with it. Since we are no longer gatekeepers, publishers have to focus on how we add quality. Sound nice--but that puts us in a real quandary, because the elements of quality we have seized on so proudly over the decades no longer matter as much. We have to recognize the new environment we're in and find new meaning for ourselves. This is a classic application of the principles from The Innovator's Dilemma, the classic book by Clayton M. Christensen, where he talks about changes caused by disruptive technologies. In our case, disruptive social norms are just as important. In many areas of publishing--including certainly my own, computer books--there are enormous resources of free online material and innumerable forums where individuals can quickly and conveniently post their own observations. Much of the material can be edited and redisplayed instantly, particularly on wikis. That is the context in which we have to define the publisher's new roles. I won't discuss marketing in this talk because I'm not a marketing person and because the rules are changing so fast that I'm afraid of making any predictions about what works. Focusing instead on content production, I've divided the roles publishers play in adding quality into four parts. For each one, I'll discuss how we're affected by the presence of so much online material. Proofing for grammar, syntax, and consistency of usage Publishers spend a lot of time making documents look professional and enforcing standards. We're obsessed with getting every comma and semi-colon right, ensuring that capitalization is consistent, and so on. I think this as a valuable contribution to quality. Sometimes someone reading an article will stop and as me, "Here's an abbreviation spelled two different ways--does it refer to the same thing or two different things?" And sometimes I'll read a sentence that's missing a word, and have to go over it two or three times to see how the parts fit together. Proofreading can resolve real problems in comprehension. But many modern readers don't value proofreading, because it comes at a cost. This cost, of course, is the extra time proofreading adds to publication. The modern reader would rather have the document right now, so he can get his tweet out before his colleague does. First tweet wins. Proofreading is also like cleaning the Aegean Stables. I've found myself in the situation where I edit a whole book and get it looking really professional, then find that someone goes in the files the next day to make some updates--and there goes all my hard work. But publishers can still offer professional proofreading. The time this is useful is when an organization needs a professional looking document--for instance, when it wants to print an online book in order to show off the organization's capabilities to a potential client. In the same situation where you take off your T-shirt and don a pants-suit, you want a professional-looking text. And publishers may be able to get revenue in such situations. Fact-checking A more significant contribution publishers make to quality is fact-checking. Many newspapers and magazines hire staff to do it; technical journals and book publishers such as O'Reilly pay outside experts a few hundred or couple thousand dollars to perform the same service. Few authors and readers online hold the view expressed by a blogger in last Sunday's New York Times who said, "Getting it right is expensive. Getting it first is cheap." But there is an attitude among responsible bloggers--which I adopt myself--that if you've gathered enough of the facts to propound a valid opinion, you can go ahead and put the opinion out for debate. If other people see errors or have evidence that weakens your argument, they can cite them in comments. If you write a wiki, they can edit it. In any case, you're encouraged to express yourself so long as you're sure you're heading in the right direction. This approach is more limited than many of its adherents think, though. In the computer field I work in, especially, a lot of online participants hold to an essential philosophy of logical positivism. They believe that if enough facts are brought to bear and enough people comment, we will all converge on the truth. If this were the case, most of the articles in Wikipedia would be perfect by now. But if course this is not the case, because new information, new opinions, new interpretations get added all the time, and with them new errors are introduced as well. So there may be a role for publishing professionals in fact checking. It will probably not be a large part of our work, though because in the Internet age fact checking is a lot easier than it used to be. Just don't rely on Wikipedia. Editing unclear and ambiguous passages This task is probably where publishers create the most value, and where they can make some of their biggest contributions to Internet content. I find it sad when I read a document by someone who is clearly brilliant and knows his material well, and come across a passage that doesn't make sense because no editor said, "You have to work on this." And every editor knows the work involved in making text comprehensible by ripping up paragraphs, rearranging points in the proper order, introducing connecting or transitional material, and even adding facts that the author took for granted but that the editor knows have to be explicitly told to the reader. I've noticed that the give and take of modern online media compensates even for poorly argued text. If someone doesn't understand a point, she can just post a question. The author can come back to cover it in more detail, and after a couple rounds of discussion they work out the meaning. Other people can join in to offer explanations. Still, I look at these exchanges and think, "A lot of people could have saved a lot of time if someone had just edited the document." And some projects are recognizing the value of having an expert eye look over a document, something few amateurs know how or take time to do. Integrating facets of a large-scale text We all know the difference between reading an anthology of diverse articles for different audiences, written from different points of view in different tones of voice, and reading a 250-page book so well integrated that you start on page 1 and can't put it down till you reach the end. Achieving this quality is where publishers shine, and I haven't found any process or mechanism in collaborative, online document production that can carry it off. But even this has diminished value in the Internet world, because hardly anyone reads a 250-page book at once. No one has time. If we read chunks of a few thousand words at a time, we could just as well read documents the way they usually appear on the Internet: many small contributions by different people scattered among different web sites. (This very article, topping 1,500 words, is about as long a text as most people would tolerate.) That doesn't mean the problem of integration has disappeared; it has just shifted. Now the public needs help finding their way among the different documents. Hints are needed as to what to read first, where to go when they encounter a new concept they need to learn, and how to harmonize documents that use different terms or approach a problem from different angles. I think publishers can play a major role helping to organize content culled from around the Internet. But the process is a lot different from organizing material into a book. It requires a new online tools and a type of different interaction between experts and those tools. I will leave you with a pointer to an article I wrote proposing some tools, and another pointer to my collection of articles about community educational efforts. In summary, publishers still have roles to play when we are no longer gatekeepers. But we have to renew our relevance in environments where enormous amounts of information are put online by different participants, with ample facilities for commenting and linking. These new technologies and norms force us to look at every area where we traditionally boast of adding quality, and to find new ways to apply our skills. From glenn.kerbein at pirate-party.us Thu Jun 18 00:42:04 2009 From: glenn.kerbein at pirate-party.us (Glenn Kerbein) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:42:04 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] EFF, PK Drop ACTA Suit -- Anyone to Take Up the Case Now? In-Reply-To: <4A393070.7144A6AE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A393070.7144A6AE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A39C59C.1070702@pirate-party.us> ACTA has been a "pet project" of mine for a while now. I have to agree with the EFF's reasoning: there's no point in wasting legal energy and time in an area that clearly won't have any further action. However, it is imperative to note that the DOJ had to step into the legal mess in order to stop it. On top of that, it's bizarre that such a pact regarding, obstensibly, fake Lois Vitton handbags is not given more transparency: businesses, as well as the affected public would only benefit from what legal protections and caveats are provided to them. Seth Johnson wrote: > Not sure what's going on here -- and what I'm saying here is no > reflection on these two key leading groups -- but the policy, > constitutional, legal issues here need to be kept alive and hot. Some > of us need to be invited to the table, some of us don't. This is how > to go through this test and retain the constitutional principle(s). > Is there anyone or group that will bring a case and keep it active > until 1) ACTA is exposed and 2) the "National Security" notion is > rebutted soundly? > > > Seth > > >> http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/06/17 > > > EFF and Public Knowledge Reluctantly Drop Lawsuit for Information > About ACTA > > Government's 'National Security' Claims Keep IP Treaty Under Wraps > > June 17th, 2009 > > > Washington, D.C. - The Obama Administration's decision to support > Bush-era concealment policies has forced the Electronic Frontier > Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge (PK) to drop their lawsuit about > the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). EFF and PK > had been seeking important documents about the secret intellectual > property enforcement treaty that has broad implications for global > privacy and innovation. > > Federal judges have very little discretion to overrule Executive > Branch decisions to classify information on "national security" > grounds, and the Obama Administration has recently informed the court > that it intends to defend the classification claims originally made by > the Bush Administration. > > "We're extremely disappointed that we have to end our lawsuit, but > there is no point in continuing it if we're not going to obtain > information before ACTA is finalized," said EFF International Policy > Director Gwen Hinze. "There's a fundamental fairness issue at stake > here. It's now clear that the negotiating texts and background > documents for this trade agreement have been made available to > representatives of major media copyright owners and pharmaceutical > companies on the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual > Property. Yet private citizens -- who stand to be greatly affected by > ACTA -- have had to rely on unofficial leaks for any substantive > information about the treaty and have had no opportunity for > meaningful input into the negotiation process. This can hardly be > described as transparent or balanced policy-making." > > "Even though we have reluctantly dropped this lawsuit, we will > continue to press the U.S. Trade Representative and the Obama > Administration on the ACTA issues," said Public Knowledge Deputy Legal > Director Sherwin Siy. "The issues are too far-reaching and too > important to allow this important agreement to be negotiated behind > closed doors," he added. > > Very little is known about ACTA, currently under negotiation between > the U.S. and more than a dozen other countries, other than that it is > not limited to anti-counterfeiting measures. Leaked documents indicate > that it could establish far-reaching customs regulations governing > searches over personal computers and iPods. Multi-national IP > corporations have publicly requested mandatory filtering of Internet > communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, as well > as the adoption of "Three Strikes" policies requiring the termination > of Internet access after repeat allegations of copyright infringement, > like the legislation recently invalidated in France. Last year, more > than 100 public interest organizations around the world called on ACTA > country negotiators to make the draft text available for public > comment. > > EFF and Public Knowledge first filed suit against the Office of the > U.S. Trade Representative in September of 2008 demanding that > background documents on ACTA be disclosed under the Freedom of > Information Act (FOIA). Rather than pursuing a lawsuit with little > chance of forcing the disclosure of key ACTA documents, EFF and Public > Knowledge will devote their efforts to advocating for consumer > representation on the U.S. Industry Trade Advisory Committee on IP, > the creation of a civil society trade advisory committee, and greater > government transparency about what ACTA means for citizens. > > For more on this case: > http://www.eff.org/cases/eff-and-public-knowledge-v-ustr > > For more on ACTA: > http://www.eff.org/issues/acta > > Contacts: > > David Sobel > Senior Counsel > Electronic Frontier Foundation > sobel at eff.org > > Gwen Hinze > International Policy Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > gwen at eff.org > > Art Brodsky > Communications Director > Public Knowledge > abrodsky at publicknowledge.org > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein United States Pirate Party "Burn, Hollywood, Burn" From meta.sj at gmail.com Thu Jun 18 18:29:19 2009 From: meta.sj at gmail.com (Samuel Klein) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:29:19 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] To GPL or CC0 In-Reply-To: <2901C70E-100C-40F1-8E71-D988708DBFBE@noneck.org> References: <2901C70E-100C-40F1-8E71-D988708DBFBE@noneck.org> Message-ID: <5396c0d10906181529p64500b9ax74d4d0168261abab@mail.gmail.com> My friend Eniola worked on a NYS project in the past and is interested in knowing how this worked out and what the final project looks like! SJ On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:35 PM, noel hidalgo wrote: > i'm in a unique situation to determine the default software licensing > of the NY State Senate. we're debating CC0 vs GPL. > > does anyone have a good resource to read up on the two? > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Jun 18 19:05:58 2009 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:05:58 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Free Software/Services at NY State Senate References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A3AC856.51538007@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://open.nysenate.gov/ Free and Open-Source Software & Services Welcome to the Open NYSenate To pursue its commitment to transparency and openness the New York State Senate (http://nysenate.gov/) is undertaking a cutting-edge program to not only release data, but help empower citizens and give back to the community. Under this program the New York Senate will, for the first time ever, give developers and other users direct access to its data through APIs and release its original software to the public. By placing the data and technological developments generated by the Senate in the public domain, the New York Senate hopes to invigorate, empower and engage citizens in policy creation and dialogue. What You'll Find Here * Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for building your own applications and services * Embeddable widgets for easy sharing on your site, profile or blog * Original Software such as Drupal Modules and Java libraries * Data sets in a variety of formats, along with Plain Language and graphical explanations of important documents and definitions * The legal rules and licenses adopted by the Senate guaranteeing that the information and tools here can be used freely Please take the data and tools offered here, mash them up, improve them and re-distribute them to help the Senate educate and engage the citizens of New York. APIs The New York Senate has created a developer API to help organizations and individuals compile the Senate data they want the way they want. The basic goal was to parse the flat file records from the Legislative Retrieval System (LRS) (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi) into an open format. This data can then be queried via a simple RESTful API to produce output in any number of desired formats or standards - XML (RSS, ATOM, custom schemas), JSON, CSV, HTML (widgets). * Browse the Open Leg Service (http://open.nysenate.gov/openleg) * View the Developer API documentation (http://open.nysenate.gov/openleg/doc) Embeddable Widgets Widgets are a fun and easy way to reach people with important information. Please view our widget library and help yourself to the tools that will enhance the experience of your users, and ours, all over the web. If you have a widget of your own using our API or data, please contact us and we may feature it here. *coming soon* Original Software As a user of Open-Source software the New York Senate wants to help give back to the community that has given it so much - including this website. To meet its needs the Senate is constantly devleoping new code and fixing existing bugs. Not only does the Senate recognize that it has a responsibility to give back to the Open Source community, but public developments, made with public money should be public. You can find all the NY Senate source code published on Github at http://github.com/nysenatecio Data Sets The New York Senate's Open Data page (http://www.nysenate.gov/open-data) is the official repository of all government data. There you can browse through data produced by and considered by the Senate in their original forms as well as various other file types created for your convenience; including but not limited to: Excel spreadsheets, .csv, text files and PDFs. To supplement the source data it is making available, the Senate has also created the Plain Language Initiative designed to help explain complex data sets and legal terms in plain language. * Browse Open Data (http://www.nysenate.gov/open-data) * Browse Plain Language Initiative (http://www.nymtasolutions.org/2009/) Open-Source Software & Software Licenses In order to make the Senate's information and software as public as possible, it is has adopted unique system using two types of licenses - GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) as well as the BSD License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php). This system is meant to ensure the most public license is used in each specific case such that: (i) Any Software released containing components with preexisting GPL copyrights must be released pursuant to a GPL v3 copyright restriction. (ii) Any Software created independently by the Senate without any preexisting licensing restrictions on any of its components shall be released under dual licensing and take one of two forms: (a) a BSD license, or (b) a GPL v3 license. The ultimate user of such Software shall choose which form of licensing makes the most sense for his or her project. (iii) Regarding Software containing preexisting copyright restrictions other than GPL, the CIO shall make the determination how he or she wishes to release such Software. From seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org Thu Jun 18 20:23:29 2009 From: seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:23:29 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Free Software/Services at NY State Senate In-Reply-To: <4A3AC856.51538007@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A3AC856.51538007@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: This literally went down the Friday before the contretemps broke out upstate. The only question is to what extent the fabulous enlightened sponsorship that produced this will continue under whatever develops out of that situation. We're very fortunate that this came out, because it sets the right stage and even if the promise here is pulled back in some way, the right discussion has not arisen in the right venue (for the first time in a legislature), discussion of this key area of concern, on the right terms, discussion that we've needed to occur somewhere, somehow, since the 80's. To a certain very great extent, I believe this is really "the cat out of the bag" for this area of concern: free software and "content" in government. As I repeat ad nauseum, the nature of information will do the rest and it's only repression that can stop it (as it has been since the 80's). All we needed was for it to be registered in an official, public legislative venue. Now we can fight for the rest with near absolute certainty of success just by standing on principle. Seth -----Original Message----- From: Seth Johnson To: discuss at freeculture.org Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:05:58 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Free Software/Services at NY State Senate > > > http://open.nysenate.gov/ > > > Free and Open-Source Software & Services > > Welcome to the Open NYSenate > > To pursue its commitment to transparency and openness the New York > State Senate (http://nysenate.gov/) is undertaking a cutting-edge > program to not only release data, but help empower citizens and give > back to the community. Under this program the New York Senate will, > for the first time ever, give developers and other users direct > access > to its data through APIs and release its original software to the > public. By placing the data and technological developments generated > by the Senate in the public domain, the New York Senate hopes to > invigorate, empower and engage citizens in policy creation and > dialogue. > > What You'll Find Here > > * Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for building your own > applications and services > * Embeddable widgets for easy sharing on your site, profile or > blog > * Original Software such as Drupal Modules and Java libraries > * Data sets in a variety of formats, along with Plain Language > and > graphical explanations of important documents and definitions > * The legal rules and licenses adopted by the Senate guaranteeing > that the information and tools here can be used freely > > Please take the data and tools offered here, mash them up, improve > them and re-distribute them to help the Senate educate and engage the > citizens of New York. > > APIs > > The New York Senate has created a developer API to help organizations > and individuals compile the Senate data they want the way they want. > The basic goal was to parse the flat file records from the > Legislative > Retrieval System (LRS) (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi) > into an open format. This data can then be queried via a simple > RESTful API to produce output in any number of desired formats or > standards - XML (RSS, ATOM, custom schemas), JSON, CSV, HTML > (widgets). > > * Browse the Open Leg Service (http://open.nysenate.gov/openleg) > * View the Developer API documentation > (http://open.nysenate.gov/openleg/doc) > > Embeddable Widgets > > Widgets are a fun and easy way to reach people with important > information. Please view our widget library and help yourself to the > tools that will enhance the experience of your users, and ours, all > over the web. If you have a widget of your own using our API or data, > please contact us and we may feature it here. > *coming soon* > > Original Software > > As a user of Open-Source software the New York Senate wants to help > give back to the community that has given it so much - including this > website. To meet its needs the Senate is constantly devleoping new > code and fixing existing bugs. Not only does the Senate recognize > that > it has a responsibility to give back to the Open Source community, > but > public developments, made with public money should be public. > > You can find all the NY Senate source code published on Github at > http://github.com/nysenatecio > > Data Sets > > The New York Senate's Open Data page > (http://www.nysenate.gov/open-data) is the official repository of all > government data. There you can browse through data produced by and > considered by the Senate in their original forms as well as various > other file types created for your convenience; including but not > limited to: Excel spreadsheets, .csv, text files and PDFs. To > supplement the source data it is making available, the Senate has > also > created the Plain Language Initiative designed to help explain > complex > data sets and legal terms in plain language. > > * Browse Open Data (http://www.nysenate.gov/open-data) > * Browse Plain Language Initiative > (http://www.nymtasolutions.org/2009/) > > Open-Source Software & Software Licenses > > In order to make the Senate's information and software as public as > possible, it is has adopted unique system using two types of licenses > - GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) > as > well as the BSD License > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php). This system is > meant to ensure the most public license is used in each specific case > such that: > > (i) Any Software released containing components with preexisting GPL > copyrights must be released pursuant to a GPL v3 copyright > restriction. > > (ii) Any Software created independently by the Senate without any > preexisting licensing restrictions on any of its components shall be > released under dual licensing and take one of two forms: (a) a BSD > license, or (b) a GPL v3 license. The ultimate user of such Software > shall choose which form of licensing makes the most sense for his or > her project. > > (iii) Regarding Software containing preexisting copyright > restrictions > other than GPL, the CIO shall make the determination how he or she > wishes to release such Software. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss From seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org Thu Jun 18 20:27:39 2009 From: seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:27:39 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Free Software/Services at NY State Senate In-Reply-To: References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A3AC856.51538007@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: (Like, proof just a little before you send, Seth) This literally went down the Friday before the contretemps broke out upstate. The only question is to what extent the fabulous enlightened sponsorship that produced this will continue under whatever develops out of that situation. We're very fortunate that this came out, because it sets the right stage and even if the promise here is pulled back in some way, the right discussion has now arisen in the right venue (for the first time in a legislature), discussion of this key area of concern, on the right terms, that we've needed to occur somewhere, somehow, since the 80's. To a certain very great extent, I believe this is really "the cat out of the bag" for this area of concern: free software and "content" in government. As I repeat ad nauseum, the nature of information will do the rest and it's only repression that can stop it (as has been taking place since the 80's). All we needed was for it to be registered in an official, public legislative venue. Now we can fight for the rest with near absolute certainty of success, just by standing on principle. Seth > -----Original Message----- > From: Seth Johnson > To: discuss at freeculture.org > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:05:58 -0400 > Subject: [FC-discuss] Free Software/Services at NY State Senate > > > > > > http://open.nysenate.gov/ > > > > > > Free and Open-Source Software & Services > > > > Welcome to the Open NYSenate > > > > To pursue its commitment to transparency and openness the New York > > State Senate (http://nysenate.gov/) is undertaking a cutting-edge > > program to not only release data, but help empower citizens and > give > > back to the community. Under this program the New York Senate will, > > for the first time ever, give developers and other users direct > > access > > to its data through APIs and release its original software to the > > public. By placing the data and technological developments > generated > > by the Senate in the public domain, the New York Senate hopes to > > invigorate, empower and engage citizens in policy creation and > > dialogue. > > > > What You'll Find Here > > > > * Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for building your > own > > applications and services > > * Embeddable widgets for easy sharing on your site, profile or > > blog > > * Original Software such as Drupal Modules and Java libraries > > * Data sets in a variety of formats, along with Plain Language > > and > > graphical explanations of important documents and definitions > > * The legal rules and licenses adopted by the Senate > guaranteeing > > that the information and tools here can be used freely > > > > Please take the data and tools offered here, mash them up, improve > > them and re-distribute them to help the Senate educate and engage > the > > citizens of New York. > > > > APIs > > > > The New York Senate has created a developer API to help > organizations > > and individuals compile the Senate data they want the way they > want. > > The basic goal was to parse the flat file records from the > > Legislative > > Retrieval System (LRS) > (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi) > > into an open format. This data can then be queried via a simple > > RESTful API to produce output in any number of desired formats or > > standards - XML (RSS, ATOM, custom schemas), JSON, CSV, HTML > > (widgets). > > > > * Browse the Open Leg Service > (http://open.nysenate.gov/openleg) > > * View the Developer API documentation > > (http://open.nysenate.gov/openleg/doc) > > > > Embeddable Widgets > > > > Widgets are a fun and easy way to reach people with important > > information. Please view our widget library and help yourself to > the > > tools that will enhance the experience of your users, and ours, all > > over the web. If you have a widget of your own using our API or > data, > > please contact us and we may feature it here. > > *coming soon* > > > > Original Software > > > > As a user of Open-Source software the New York Senate wants to help > > give back to the community that has given it so much - including > this > > website. To meet its needs the Senate is constantly devleoping new > > code and fixing existing bugs. Not only does the Senate recognize > > that > > it has a responsibility to give back to the Open Source community, > > but > > public developments, made with public money should be public. > > > > You can find all the NY Senate source code published on Github at > > http://github.com/nysenatecio > > > > Data Sets > > > > The New York Senate's Open Data page > > (http://www.nysenate.gov/open-data) is the official repository of > all > > government data. There you can browse through data produced by and > > considered by the Senate in their original forms as well as various > > other file types created for your convenience; including but not > > limited to: Excel spreadsheets, .csv, text files and PDFs. To > > supplement the source data it is making available, the Senate has > > also > > created the Plain Language Initiative designed to help explain > > complex > > data sets and legal terms in plain language. > > > > * Browse Open Data (http://www.nysenate.gov/open-data) > > * Browse Plain Language Initiative > > (http://www.nymtasolutions.org/2009/) > > > > Open-Source Software & Software Licenses > > > > In order to make the Senate's information and software as public as > > possible, it is has adopted unique system using two types of > licenses > > - GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) > > as > > well as the BSD License > > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php). This system > is > > meant to ensure the most public license is used in each specific > case > > such that: > > > > (i) Any Software released containing components with preexisting > GPL > > copyrights must be released pursuant to a GPL v3 copyright > > restriction. > > > > (ii) Any Software created independently by the Senate without any > > preexisting licensing restrictions on any of its components shall > be > > released under dual licensing and take one of two forms: (a) a BSD > > license, or (b) a GPL v3 license. The ultimate user of such > Software > > shall choose which form of licensing makes the most sense for his > or > > her project. > > > > (iii) Regarding Software containing preexisting copyright > > restrictions > > other than GPL, the CIO shall make the determination how he or she > > wishes to release such Software. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss at freeculture.org > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss From robert.radamant at gmail.com Mon Jun 22 08:55:57 2009 From: robert.radamant at gmail.com (robert olujic) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:55:57 +0200 Subject: [FC-discuss] a song for something about FC Message-ID: <6eb159a30906220555i4cf638fcq1575b57400f4a2c1@mail.gmail.com> hello everybody :) my name is robert, and i'm a music producer. there's a track i made called "free the sounds", and i think this track could be used for some kind of a video about cc, or something like that. anyway, here's the link: http://www.archive.org/details/FreeTheSounds -- http://robertradamantco.wordpress.com/ http://www.myspace.com/robertradamantsco www.egoboobits.net/RobertRadamant www.uke.hr www.zamirzine.net www.stanicamir.org www.pop.ba -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090622/7be5658a/attachment.htm From gavin at gavinbaker.com Mon Jun 22 13:22:28 2009 From: gavin at gavinbaker.com (Gavin Baker) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:22:28 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Help build a database of university policies on open dissertations Message-ID: <4A3FBDD4.3070401@gavinbaker.com> ROARMAP (Registry of Open Access Repository Material Archiving Policies) has recently started indexing universities' policies about open access to ETDs (electronic theses and dissertations). If your school has a policy about open access to ETDs, please add it here: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/ -- Gavin Baker http://www.gavinbaker.com/ gavin at gavinbaker.com For myself, I am an optimist -- it does not seem to be much use being anything else. Winston Churchill From parkerhiggins at gmail.com Mon Jun 22 13:29:06 2009 From: parkerhiggins at gmail.com (Parker Higgins) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:29:06 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Help build a database of university policies on open dissertations In-Reply-To: <97afb7270906221028g4a0f2d6dkb8290bbb042fd1f@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A3FBDD4.3070401@gavinbaker.com> <97afb7270906221028g4a0f2d6dkb8290bbb042fd1f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <97afb7270906221029o3aa6ff38s108ef7c9c52089d7@mail.gmail.com> Great that they're doing this; this is data we'll probably want to incorporate into the Open University Report Card project, right? Parker Sent from my portable e-mail unit On Jun 22, 2009 1:22 PM, "Gavin Baker" wrote: ROARMAP (Registry of Open Access Repository Material Archiving Policies) has recently started indexing universities' policies about open access to ETDs (electronic theses and dissertations). If your school has a policy about open access to ETDs, please add it here: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/ -- Gavin Baker http://www.gavinbaker.com/ gavin at gavinbaker.com For myself, I am an optimist -- it does not seem to be much use being anything else. Winston Churchill _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss at freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090622/59bc6578/attachment.htm From noel at noneck.org Mon Jun 22 17:23:50 2009 From: noel at noneck.org (noel hidalgo) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:23:50 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Free Software/Services at NY State Senate In-Reply-To: References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A3AC856.51538007@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: now that the cat is out of the bag, we need apps to be built on top of it. that's the only way it will be damn near impossible to put the cat back in... noel On 18 Jun 2009, at 20:23, Seth Johnson wrote: > The only question is to what extent the fabulous enlightened > sponsorship that produced this will continue under whatever develops > out > of that situation. From parkerhiggins at gmail.com Mon Jun 22 17:54:19 2009 From: parkerhiggins at gmail.com (Parker Higgins) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:54:19 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] a song for something about FC In-Reply-To: <6eb159a30906220555i4cf638fcq1575b57400f4a2c1@mail.gmail.com> References: <6eb159a30906220555i4cf638fcq1575b57400f4a2c1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <97afb7270906221454ifcbf862j58152d804f375b56@mail.gmail.com> Maybe I just don't know where to look, but it's not immediately clear on the archive.org page how the song is licensed? Parker On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:55 AM, robert olujic wrote: > hello everybody :) > > my name is robert, and i'm a music producer. there's a track i made called > "free the sounds", and i think this track could be used for some kind of a > video about cc, or something like that. > > anyway, here's the link: > > http://www.archive.org/details/FreeTheSounds > > -- > http://robertradamantco.wordpress.com/ > http://www.myspace.com/robertradamantsco > www.egoboobits.net/RobertRadamant > www.uke.hr > www.zamirzine.net > www.stanicamir.org > www.pop.ba > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090622/e2efcbd1/attachment.htm From robert.radamant at gmail.com Mon Jun 22 18:13:26 2009 From: robert.radamant at gmail.com (robert olujic) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:13:26 +0200 Subject: [FC-discuss] a song for something about FC In-Reply-To: <97afb7270906221454ifcbf862j58152d804f375b56@mail.gmail.com> References: <6eb159a30906220555i4cf638fcq1575b57400f4a2c1@mail.gmail.com> <97afb7270906221454ifcbf862j58152d804f375b56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6eb159a30906221513i355f446cq183ccee0ea2dbdd@mail.gmail.com> its licensed so that you can do whit it whatever you want :) 2009/6/22 Parker Higgins > Maybe I just don't know where to look, but it's not immediately clear on > the archive.org page how the song is licensed? > > Parker > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:55 AM, robert olujic wrote: > >> hello everybody :) >> >> my name is robert, and i'm a music producer. there's a track i made called >> "free the sounds", and i think this track could be used for some kind of a >> video about cc, or something like that. >> >> anyway, here's the link: >> >> http://www.archive.org/details/FreeTheSounds >> >> -- >> http://robertradamantco.wordpress.com/ >> http://www.myspace.com/robertradamantsco >> www.egoboobits.net/RobertRadamant >> www.uke.hr >> www.zamirzine.net >> www.stanicamir.org >> www.pop.ba >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- http://robertradamantco.wordpress.com/ http://www.myspace.com/robertradamantsco www.egoboobits.net/RobertRadamant www.uke.hr www.zamirzine.net www.stanicamir.org www.pop.ba -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090623/3e2c865a/attachment.htm From parkerhiggins at gmail.com Mon Jun 22 18:17:29 2009 From: parkerhiggins at gmail.com (Parker Higgins) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:17:29 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] a song for something about FC In-Reply-To: <6eb159a30906221513i355f446cq183ccee0ea2dbdd@mail.gmail.com> References: <6eb159a30906220555i4cf638fcq1575b57400f4a2c1@mail.gmail.com> <97afb7270906221454ifcbf862j58152d804f375b56@mail.gmail.com> <6eb159a30906221513i355f446cq183ccee0ea2dbdd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <97afb7270906221517m6dfc865do4755073f60b928e1@mail.gmail.com> ah, so it's under the wtfpl :) On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM, robert olujic wrote: > its licensed so that you can do whit it whatever you want :) > > 2009/6/22 Parker Higgins > > Maybe I just don't know where to look, but it's not immediately clear on >> the archive.org page how the song is licensed? >> >> Parker >> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:55 AM, robert olujic > > wrote: >> >>> hello everybody :) >>> >>> my name is robert, and i'm a music producer. there's a track i made >>> called "free the sounds", and i think this track could be used for some kind >>> of a video about cc, or something like that. >>> >>> anyway, here's the link: >>> >>> http://www.archive.org/details/FreeTheSounds >>> >>> -- >>> http://robertradamantco.wordpress.com/ >>> http://www.myspace.com/robertradamantsco >>> www.egoboobits.net/RobertRadamant >>> www.uke.hr >>> www.zamirzine.net >>> www.stanicamir.org >>> www.pop.ba >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > http://robertradamantco.wordpress.com/ > http://www.myspace.com/robertradamantsco > www.egoboobits.net/RobertRadamant > www.uke.hr > www.zamirzine.net > www.stanicamir.org > www.pop.ba > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090622/025bd3a3/attachment-0001.htm From robert.radamant at gmail.com Mon Jun 22 18:21:43 2009 From: robert.radamant at gmail.com (robert olujic) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:21:43 +0200 Subject: [FC-discuss] a song for something about FC In-Reply-To: <97afb7270906221517m6dfc865do4755073f60b928e1@mail.gmail.com> References: <6eb159a30906220555i4cf638fcq1575b57400f4a2c1@mail.gmail.com> <97afb7270906221454ifcbf862j58152d804f375b56@mail.gmail.com> <6eb159a30906221513i355f446cq183ccee0ea2dbdd@mail.gmail.com> <97afb7270906221517m6dfc865do4755073f60b928e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6eb159a30906221521g68196bc0ucffcde25b82981ca@mail.gmail.com> lets say so. 2009/6/23 Parker Higgins > ah, so it's under the wtfpl :) > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM, robert olujic wrote: > >> its licensed so that you can do whit it whatever you want :) >> >> 2009/6/22 Parker Higgins >> >> Maybe I just don't know where to look, but it's not immediately clear on >>> the archive.org page how the song is licensed? >>> >>> Parker >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:55 AM, robert olujic < >>> robert.radamant at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> hello everybody :) >>>> >>>> my name is robert, and i'm a music producer. there's a track i made >>>> called "free the sounds", and i think this track could be used for some kind >>>> of a video about cc, or something like that. >>>> >>>> anyway, here's the link: >>>> >>>> http://www.archive.org/details/FreeTheSounds >>>> >>>> -- >>>> http://robertradamantco.wordpress.com/ >>>> http://www.myspace.com/robertradamantsco >>>> www.egoboobits.net/RobertRadamant >>>> www.uke.hr >>>> www.zamirzine.net >>>> www.stanicamir.org >>>> www.pop.ba >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> http://robertradamantco.wordpress.com/ >> http://www.myspace.com/robertradamantsco >> www.egoboobits.net/RobertRadamant >> www.uke.hr >> www.zamirzine.net >> www.stanicamir.org >> www.pop.ba >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- http://robertradamantco.wordpress.com/ http://www.myspace.com/robertradamantsco www.egoboobits.net/RobertRadamant www.uke.hr www.zamirzine.net www.stanicamir.org www.pop.ba -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090623/765b9bf2/attachment.htm From gabrieljoel at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 23:40:50 2009 From: gabrieljoel at gmail.com (Gabriel Joel Perez) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:40:50 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] New facebook related to free network services Message-ID: <9a442d030906242040u189911feib5d51e39282fe305@mail.gmail.com> I made a new group on facebook some of you might want to join. If you don't have a facebook account do not create one to join the group. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=95141004094&ref=mf Here's the description: If Facebook were a country, it would be the eighth most populated in the world, just ahead of Japan, Russia and Nigeria. Also it would be one of the biggest totalitarian police states. Here in this facebook "country" we don't have any privacy assurances or control over our data. We can't even befriend people form other "countries" like, myspace, orkut, bebo, hi5, elgg, identi.ca and twitter!!! Some would say well if you don't like it just leave. Well, that's part of the problem, there isn't even a way to completely delete our accounts. The other problem is that we are locked in to this service very badly, our friends and family are here! How can we say no to them?! We as a group will bow to do our best to advocate an open and decentralized facebook,and social Internet, based on open and free protocols and technologies. I don't plan on dedicating too much time on this. It's just that this issue has been bothering me a lot lately and I didd't find any facebook group advocating for this so I made one. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090624/86af770a/attachment.htm From kdonovan11 at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 09:50:00 2009 From: kdonovan11 at gmail.com (Kevin Donovan) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:50:00 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group Message-ID: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> Hey all - A couple of us wanted to get together (virtually) to do some serious work on the Open University report cards project ( http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards). We're going to set up a new listserv and schedule a call for sometime in the next week. All are welcome to join, just let me know if you'd like to be added to the list. Kevin -- Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090630/bf8e8ae6/attachment.htm From brian at freedomforip.org Tue Jun 30 10:03:11 2009 From: brian at freedomforip.org (Brian Rowe) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:03:11 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group In-Reply-To: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> I am interested in joining. -Brian On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Kevin Donovan wrote: > Hey all - A couple of us wanted to get together (virtually) to do some > serious work on the Open University report cards project ( > http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards). We're going to > set up a new listserv and schedule a call for sometime in the next week. All > are welcome to join, just let me know if you'd like to be added to the list. > > Kevin > > -- > Kevin Donovan > Georgetown '11: SFS > 630.849.8285 > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Brian Rowe Juris Doctorate Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge (206) 335-8577 (Cell) Public Knowledge www.publicknowledge.org Access To Justice Technology Principles www.ATJWeb.org Freedom for IP www.FreedomforIP.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090630/b3824f6b/attachment.htm From kdonovan11 at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 10:43:15 2009 From: kdonovan11 at gmail.com (Kevin Donovan) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:43:15 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Dept. of Education to Fund OCW-Like Projects Message-ID: <827235d0906300743r748995e7o68373835e8dc2319@mail.gmail.com> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/29/ccplan Remains to be seen if "free" refers to price or liberty, though. -- Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090630/186e2b53/attachment.htm From akozak at berkeley.edu Tue Jun 30 11:28:46 2009 From: akozak at berkeley.edu (Alex Kozak) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:28:46 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group In-Reply-To: <7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Same. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: > I am interested in joining. > > -Brian > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Kevin Donovan wrote: > >> Hey all - A couple of us wanted to get together (virtually) to do some >> serious work on the Open University report cards project ( >> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards). We're going to >> set up a new listserv and schedule a call for sometime in the next week. All >> are welcome to join, just let me know if you'd like to be added to the list. >> >> Kevin >> >> -- >> Kevin Donovan >> Georgetown '11: SFS >> 630.849.8285 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at freeculture.org >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > > -- > Brian Rowe > Juris Doctorate > Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge > (206) 335-8577 (Cell) > > Public Knowledge > www.publicknowledge.org > > Access To Justice Technology Principles > www.ATJWeb.org > > Freedom for IP > www.FreedomforIP.org > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Alex Kozak akozak at berkeley.edu 916.225.2718 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090630/27fa2ab5/attachment-0001.htm From rich at anomos.info Tue Jun 30 13:20:33 2009 From: rich at anomos.info (Rich Jones) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:33 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes please! On Jun 30, 2009 11:29 AM, "Alex Kozak" wrote: Same. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Brian Rowe wrote: > > I am interested in... Alex Kozak akozak at berkeley.edu 916.225.2718 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss at freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090630/463f1002/attachment.htm From gameguy43 at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 13:35:07 2009 From: gameguy43 at gmail.com (D. Parker Phinney) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:35:07 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com> count me in. Rich Jones wrote: > Yes please! > >> On Jun 30, 2009 11:29 AM, "Alex Kozak" > > wrote: >> >> Same. >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Brian Rowe > > wrote: > > I am interested in... >> >> Alex Kozak >> akozak at berkeley.edu >> 916.225.2718 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- D Parker Phinney madebyparker.com From gameguy43 at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 13:58:56 2009 From: gameguy43 at gmail.com (D. Parker Phinney) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:58:56 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] wiki licensing Message-ID: <4A4A5260.30202@gmail.com> we (the web team) are doing some hacking in the chapter registration script. when it's finished, there will be magic. and we were thinking about wiki licensing for chapters. we looked at national because we figured we should just emulate the licensing at wiki.freeculture.org. but now we're not so sure. wiki.freeculture.org is using the GFDL. with wikipedia's recent move to cc-by-sa, perhaps SFC should follow suit? or perhaps people would rather we use cc-by (less restrictions on use, but doesn't assert the copyleft)? thoughts? me first: we should go with cc-by-sa. -- D Parker Phinney madebyparker.com From wesley at freeculturenyu.org Tue Jun 30 14:00:18 2009 From: wesley at freeculturenyu.org (Wesley Chen) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:00:18 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group In-Reply-To: <4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com> References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> <4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com> Message-ID: Of course! On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM, D. Parker Phinney wrote: > count me in. > > Rich Jones wrote: > > Yes please! > > > >> On Jun 30, 2009 11:29 AM, "Alex Kozak" >> > wrote: > >> > >> Same. > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Brian Rowe >> > wrote: > > I am interested in... > >> > >> Alex Kozak > >> akozak at berkeley.edu > >> 916.225.2718 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > -- > D Parker Phinney > madebyparker.com > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090630/2557aa46/attachment.htm From ccowens at vt.edu Tue Jun 30 14:04:26 2009 From: ccowens at vt.edu (Clifford Conley Owens III) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:04:26 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] wiki licensing In-Reply-To: <4A4A5260.30202@gmail.com> References: <4A4A5260.30202@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A4A53AA.6070802@vt.edu> D. Parker Phinney wrote: > we (the web team) are doing some hacking in the chapter registration > script. when it's finished, there will be magic. Thank you so much. ~Conley > and we were thinking about wiki licensing for chapters. we looked at > national because we figured we should just emulate the licensing at > wiki.freeculture.org. but now we're not so sure. wiki.freeculture.org > is using the GFDL. with wikipedia's recent move to cc-by-sa, perhaps > SFC should follow suit? or perhaps people would rather we use cc-by > (less restrictions on use, but doesn't assert the copyleft)? I would use CC BY-SA. From miserlou at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 14:05:31 2009 From: miserlou at gmail.com (Rich Jones) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:05:31 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] wiki licensing In-Reply-To: <4A4A53AA.6070802@vt.edu> References: <4A4A5260.30202@gmail.com> <4A4A53AA.6070802@vt.edu> Message-ID: Upvote for CC-BY-SA. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Clifford Conley Owens III wrote: > D. Parker Phinney wrote: >> we (the web team) are doing some hacking in the chapter registration >> script. ?when it's finished, there will be magic. > > Thank you so much. > > ~Conley > >> and we were thinking about wiki licensing for chapters. ?we looked at >> national because we figured we should just emulate the licensing at >> wiki.freeculture.org. ?but now we're not so sure. ?wiki.freeculture.org >> is using the GFDL. ?with wikipedia's recent move to cc-by-sa, perhaps >> SFC should follow suit? ?or perhaps people would rather we use cc-by >> (less restrictions on use, but doesn't assert the copyleft)? > > I would use CC BY-SA. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From adikamdar at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 14:39:35 2009 From: adikamdar at gmail.com (Adi Kamdar) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:39:35 -0700 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> <4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <684dbf750906301139h4980824dob026fd936a0e97ee@mail.gmail.com> +me -Adi On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Wesley Chen wrote: > Of course! > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM, D. Parker Phinney wrote: > >> count me in. >> >> Rich Jones wrote: >> > Yes please! >> > >> >> On Jun 30, 2009 11:29 AM, "Alex Kozak" > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Same. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Brian Rowe > >> > wrote: > > I am interested in... >> >> >> >> Alex Kozak >> >> akozak at berkeley.edu >> >> 916.225.2718 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> -- >> D Parker Phinney >> madebyparker.com >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090630/4b620102/attachment.htm From mobrimer at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 14:45:37 2009 From: mobrimer at gmail.com (Matthew O. Brimer) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:45:37 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> <4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com> Message-ID: Add me to the list as well. Great to see this effort getting support. Cheers, -MOB On Jun 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > Of course! > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM, D. Parker Phinney > wrote: > count me in. > > Rich Jones wrote: > > Yes please! > > > >> On Jun 30, 2009 11:29 AM, "Alex Kozak" >> > wrote: > >> > >> Same. > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Brian Rowe >> > wrote: > > I am interested in... > >> > >> Alex Kozak > >> akozak at berkeley.edu > >> 916.225.2718 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > -- > D Parker Phinney > madebyparker.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090630/3254e4fa/attachment-0001.htm From rob at robmyers.org Tue Jun 30 15:22:06 2009 From: rob at robmyers.org (Rob Myers) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:22:06 +0100 Subject: [FC-discuss] wiki licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A4A5260.30202@gmail.com> <4A4A53AA.6070802@vt.edu> Message-ID: <4A4A65DE.9000709@robmyers.org> Yes. Following Wikipedia's lead would be good. - Rob. On 30/06/09 19:05, Rich Jones wrote: > Upvote for CC-BY-SA. > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Clifford Conley Owens > III wrote: >> D. Parker Phinney wrote: >>> we (the web team) are doing some hacking in the chapter registration >>> script. when it's finished, there will be magic. >> Thank you so much. >> >> ~Conley >> >>> and we were thinking about wiki licensing for chapters. we looked at >>> national because we figured we should just emulate the licensing at >>> wiki.freeculture.org. but now we're not so sure. wiki.freeculture.org >>> is using the GFDL. with wikipedia's recent move to cc-by-sa, perhaps >>> SFC should follow suit? or perhaps people would rather we use cc-by >>> (less restrictions on use, but doesn't assert the copyleft)? >> I would use CC BY-SA. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From meta.sj at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 15:46:48 2009 From: meta.sj at gmail.com (Samuel Klein) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] wiki licensing In-Reply-To: <4A4A5260.30202@gmail.com> References: <4A4A5260.30202@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5396c0d10906301246i7d40e0fjeadae3b172aa145f@mail.gmail.com> wiki.fc should migrate to cc-sa also. SJ On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:58 PM, D. Parker Phinney wrote: > we (the web team) are doing some hacking in the chapter registration > script. ?when it's finished, there will be magic. > > and we were thinking about wiki licensing for chapters. ?we looked at > national because we figured we should just emulate the licensing at > wiki.freeculture.org. ?but now we're not so sure. ?wiki.freeculture.org > is using the GFDL. ?with wikipedia's recent move to cc-by-sa, perhaps > SFC should follow suit? ?or perhaps people would rather we use cc-by > (less restrictions on use, but doesn't assert the copyleft)? > > thoughts? > > me first: > we should go with cc-by-sa. > > -- > D Parker Phinney > madebyparker.com > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From meta.sj at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 15:54:43 2009 From: meta.sj at gmail.com (Samuel Klein) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:54:43 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> <4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5396c0d10906301254g3ba86b9el259948c1c4fee3b0@mail.gmail.com> Ditto. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Matthew O. Brimer wrote: > Add me to the list as well. Great to see this effort getting support. > Cheers, > -MOB > On Jun 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > > Of course! > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM, D. Parker Phinney > wrote: >> >> count me in. >> >> Rich Jones wrote: >> > Yes please! >> > >> >> On Jun 30, 2009 11:29 AM, "Alex Kozak" > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Same. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Brian Rowe > >> > wrote: > > I am interested in... >> >> >> >> Alex Kozak >> >> akozak at berkeley.edu >> >> 916.225.2718 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> -- >> D Parker Phinney >> madebyparker.com >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > From admin at hhh.freeculture.org Tue Jun 30 16:04:18 2009 From: admin at hhh.freeculture.org (Half Hollow Hills SFC Admin) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:04:18 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] wiki licensing In-Reply-To: <4A4A65DE.9000709@robmyers.org> References: <4A4A5260.30202@gmail.com> <4A4A53AA.6070802@vt.edu> <4A4A65DE.9000709@robmyers.org> Message-ID: <1246392258.15268.1.camel@Mac> CC-By-SA++; Should the license still be mutable by the chapter head? -- Half Hollow Hills SFC Admin Half Hollow Hills Students for Free Culture From alexleavitt at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 21:33:03 2009 From: alexleavitt at gmail.com (Alex Leavitt) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:33:03 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group In-Reply-To: <5396c0d10906301254g3ba86b9el259948c1c4fee3b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> <7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> <4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com> <5396c0d10906301254g3ba86b9el259948c1c4fee3b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <767eb04e0906301833v79baa13fk3586335ff63b5ae@mail.gmail.com> Please. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > Ditto. > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Matthew O. Brimer > wrote: > > Add me to the list as well. Great to see this effort getting support. > > Cheers, > > -MOB > > On Jun 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Wesley Chen wrote: > > > > Of course! > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM, D. Parker Phinney > > > wrote: > >> > >> count me in. > >> > >> Rich Jones wrote: > >> > Yes please! > >> > > >> >> On Jun 30, 2009 11:29 AM, "Alex Kozak" >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Same. > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Brian Rowe >> >> > wrote: > > I am interested in... > >> >> > >> >> Alex Kozak > >> >> akozak at berkeley.edu > >> >> 916.225.2718 > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> 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 > >> > >> -- > >> D Parker Phinney > >> madebyparker.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090630/54aa490d/attachment.htm From darts at nyu.edu Tue Jun 30 22:06:57 2009 From: darts at nyu.edu (David Darts) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:06:57 -0400 Subject: [FC-discuss] Conflux Festival - Call for Proposals - ConfluxCity 2009 Message-ID: <343570d10906301906v14b9dba3u97aba75896691c05@mail.gmail.com> Hello SFC! Just wanted to let everyone know the Conflux Festival (the art and technology festival for the creative exploration of urban public space) is now accepting submissions for ConfluxCity - a user-generated open format event to be held in NYC on Sunday September 18th, 2009 from 10am-6pm. Conflux will be hosted here at NYU - see below for more info. Warmly, David Darts Curatorial Director Conflux Festival 2009 http://confluxfestival.org ===================== Announcing Conflux 2009! ===================== FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 26, 2009 Inquiries: Kari Hensley, Communications Director media ::at:: confluxfestival.org Glowlab announces the 6th Annual Conflux Festival in partnership with New York University. Conflux, the art and technology festival for the creative exploration of urban public space, is pleased to announce the 6th annual Conflux Festival will take place from September 17-20, 2009. The festival will be headquartered in Manhattan with our partner and host, NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. As in past years, Conflux events will take place throughout New York?s five boroughs. The future of the festival was uncertain after the initial five-year run ended last year. In the midst of the econocalypse, however, artistic and critical attention to the complexities of urban space has taken on a heightened significance. It thus seemed imperative for the festival to continue with a special emphasis placed on resource-sharing, academic analysis, and hands-on and collaborative approaches to the creative examination of the urban environment. The structure of the festival continues to evolve with this year?s presenters curated by invitation from within the existing Conflux community. In keeping with its commitment to openness, the festival will also include a special open-format day long event called ConfluxCity that will allow for a diverse range of new participants and projects. ============== ConfluxCity 2009 ============== In keeping with its commitment to urban artistic exploration, community participation, shared knowledge, and critical civic engagement, Conflux will organize a user-generated open format event on Sunday September 18th, 2009 from 10am-6pm. Through an open submissions process, ConfluxCity will provide a platform for artists, urban geographers, technologists and others to organize and produce innovative activities dedicated to the examination, celebration and (re)construction of everyday urban life. Drawing inspiration from Burning Man?s creed of radical self-reliance and BarCamp?s philosophy of openness and participation, ConfluxCity will adopt an open-space approach in which participants will be expected to organize, promote, and host their own activities and events. To facilitate this format, the Conflux Festival headquarters and website will serve as a central communications hub directing festival attendees outward to individual event websites and locations. ConfluxCity participants must submit their proposal by July 20th ($10 administrative fee). All proposals will be judged based on artistic merit, originality, and feasibility. The 2009 Conflux Festival schedule, venue, and other details will be announced soon. Stay tuned. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Conflux Festival is the annual New York festival for contemporary psychogeography. It is a three-day event that promotes the intellectual and artistic investigation of everyday urban life though emerging artistic, technological and social practices. Over the past five years, the festival has grown into an international art event with a global reach and a reputation for presenting cutting-edge artistic work within the realm of public-space arts. For a few days each September, Conflux transforms the city into a temporary laboratory for creative experimentation and action. Past Conflux works and events have included mapping projects, high-tech mobile public space interventions, artist-facilitated walking tours, public installations, interactive performances, bike and subway expeditions, workshops, lectures, film programs and live music performances. Conflux is attended by people with a common desire to understand, explore, celebrate, and improve the urban environment. Conflux visitors are introduced to strategies for utilizing performance, visual art, and music to address the environment, sustainable development, the increased presence of technology in cities, emerging trends in social/local networking, and ways to encourage community dialogue and humanize the urban experience. As a fiscally sponsored project of the Brooklyn Arts Council, Conflux has received grants and donations from the New York State Council on the Arts, Artists Space, the Puffin Foundation, the Independence Community Foundation and private contributors. The festival has been featured extensively in publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal Online, The Village Voice, Time Out, New York Press, Flash Art, Art Review and many others. Conflux is produced by Glowlab, an innovative art project space and creative catalyst for contemporary urban art. Our represented artists, technologists and inspired thinkers are true social change agents, modeling progressive approaches to urban living. We specialize in presenting spatial and social concepts through artworks and exhibitions related to cities and the urban environment. -- David Darts, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Art and Art Education Associate Director, MA in Studio Art: Venice, Italy New York University Steinhardt Department of Art & Art Professions 34 Stuyvesant Street New York, NY 10003 212.998.5700 darts at nyu.edu http://mediamind.org http://ct4ct.com