ten years of open content

10 Years of Open Content

David Wiley, PhDBrigham Young University

Instructional Psychology & Technology

History?

http://flickr.com/photos/scragz/91147636/

Personal history

http://www.marshall.edu/finance/avpadmin/BlockM.jpg

http://flickr.com/photos/jamoker/502625172/

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/ana_bookstore?size=_original

Free software

http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/Images/saintignucius.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49968232@N00/2549830623http://www.flickr.com/photos/95229107@N00/1817276189 http://www.flickr.com/photos/95229107@N00/2125865619

“Freedom”

http://flickr.com/photos/henrikmoltke/2713574899/

Winter, 1998

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/files/www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/nodes/2565/raymond007-5-2.jpg

“Goodbye, Free Software; Hello, Open Source”

http://www.digijet.net/img/opensource.gif

http://www-acerc.byu.edu/Figures/BYUMedallionSM1.jpg

Let’s do this for content

A GPL for content?

free? open?

education? culture? content? materials?

stuff? works?

OpenContent Principles / License (OP/L)

Principles in a license?

http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/Images/saintignucius.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/ImageNupedia.png

Little uptake in education

Education = Publishers

So, in 1999...

http://flickr.com/photos/x180/888971170/

Would you publish openly?

What do publishers want?

Protect from undercutting

What do authors want?

Recognition

Protect work’s integrity

Open Publication License

Allows what you’d expect

Requires attribution

Two options

Option ATo prohibit distribution of substantively modified

versions without the explicit permission of the author(s)

Option BTo prohibit any publication of this work or derivative

works in whole or in part in standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes unless prior permission is

obtained from the copyright holder.

Much better uptake!

http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/grokking-the-gimp.gif

But there were problems

OP/L vs OPL

Calling both the “open content license”

OPL options A and B

Who named these?!?

And how do I tell?

btw, I’m not a lawyer

How do we fix this?

We don’t have to!

http://flickr.com/photos/35034363287@N01/2236177028/

Dec 2002, CC licenses

1.0 licenses

Attribution election

Noncommercial election

No Derivatives election

Not one license w/ options

Multiple, named licenses

CC By or

CC By-NC-ND

(Still a button problem)

2.0 licenses

Attribution mandatory

(Back to OPL structure)

Later fixed the buttons!

Skipping ahead... (GFDL)

Where are we today?

How much open content?

Over 75,000,000 photos (CC)

Over 7,000,000 articles (GFDL)

10,818 Albums, 6,186 Artists (CC)

430,000 audio recordings (CC)

8,000 Songs, 580 Albums, 250 Artists (CC)

417,000 Videos (CC)

125,871 Moving Images, 51,454 Live audio,276,179 Audio recordings, 466,065 Texts (var)

And in education?

“Open Educational Resources” (2002)

4,000 university courses (CC)

500 university textbooks (var)

16,000 K-12 curriculum units (CC)

Over 1600 individuals and 160 organizations

Not bad for 10 years!

The next 10 years?

4 books in 25 university beta fall 08 (CCPlus)

Public, online, exclusively open curriculumApproved 2008, Opens 2009

The disaggregation of higher education

HE provides:

• Content

• Learning support

• Credentials

From nothing to here in 10 years...

Rate of disaggregation will continue to increase

Next 10 years look very exciting!

Where will you take OE?

Thank You

david.wiley@gmail.com

http://davidwiley.org/