Access to Open Contents is not Open Access to knowledge

Texto da comunicación

The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) sets out principles to define the 'open' in open knowledge. The term knowledge is used broadly and it includes all forms of data, content such as music, films or books as well any other type of information. In the simplest form the definition can be summed up in the statement that "A piece of knowledge is open if you are free to use, reuse, and redistribute it". According to tye Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) A work is open if its manner of distribution satisfies the following conditions:

1. Access

The work shall be available as a whole and at no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The work must also be available in a convenient and modifiable form.

2. Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the work either on its own or as part of a package made from works from many different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale or distribution.

3. Reuse

The license must allow for modifications and derivative works and must allow them to be distributed under the terms of the original work. The license may impose some form of attribution and integrity requirements: see principle 5 (Attribution) and principle 6 (Integrity) below.

Comment: Note that this clause does not prevent the use of 'viral' or share-alike licenses that require redistribution of modifications under the same terms as the original.

4. Absence of Technological Restriction

The work must be provided in such a form that there are no technological obstacles to the performance of the above activities. This can be achieved by the provision of the work in an open data format, i.e. one whose specification is publicly and freely available and which places no restrictions monetary or otherwise upon its use.

5. Attribution

The license may require as a condition for redistribution and re-use the attribution of the contributors and creators to the work. If this condition is imposed it must not be onerous. For example if attribution is required a list of those requiring attribution should accompany the work.

6. Integrity

The license may require as a condition for the work being distributed in modified form that the resulting work carry a different name or version number from the original work.

7. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Comment: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open knowledge. Therefore we forbid any open-knowledge license from locking anybody out of the process.

8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work in a specific field of endeavour. For example, it may not restrict the work from being used in a business, or from being used for military research.

Comment: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

9. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the work must apply to all to whom the work is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

10. License Must Not Be Specific to a Package

The rights attached to the work must not depend on the work being part of a particular package. If the work is extracted from that package and used or distributed within the terms of the work's license, all parties to whom the work is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original package.

11. License Must Not Restrict the Distribution of Other Works

The license must not place restrictions on other works that are distributed along with the licensed work. For example, the license must not insist that all other works distributed on the same medium are open.

Open Knowledge community appears associated with the Free Culture movement , initiated by the creators of Creative Commons (CC) founded by Lawrence Lessig. Lessig , a relevant figure in the free software movement such as Richard Stallman (founder of the Free Software Foundation and the free software movement. He wrote a book called Free Culture, which provides many arguments in favour of the free culture movement. For Lessig the laws of intellectual property may prevent creativity and knowledge empowerment of authors and citizens , ‘Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The project does not compete with copyright; it complements nit. Its aim is not to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily’ ( Lessig, p.292) . Lessig questioned the Media companies’ uses of technology and the law to control the access to culture and creativity

In the so called knowledge society access to information and culture seems to spread wildly through the web. But it we look more carefully this may not be so obvious. It is true that today it is easy to look for information , but is the information available free from censorship? What kind of channels are spreading out the information?

Collecting information in the internet is amazingly fast I space and time , but when there is an enormous amounts o f information it may be pervasive , information is not knowledge . Knowledge requires media skills, skills to decode ( systematise, organise, select, re-organise) and critical skills to question the received information , it requires creative and critical learners who may manipulate the information and rearrange it in new ways . This should be the basic competencies for each citizen.

Open knowledge brings us an enormous potential of information more accessible to the audiences, minimizing the influence of publishing companies and excessive copyrights, it makes the relationship between authors and readers more interactive, using licenses that may accept the re-creation of the works . This is a new direction in the authorship and readership concept. Legally the exclusive rights do not, however, constitute a complete monopoly for the right holder. For instance, copyright will not be infringed if an insubstantial part of a work is copied, or if a substantial part of a work is copied for the purpose of non-commercial research and private study. However, the law is far from clear as to where the boundary between the rights reserved to the right holder and what can be used by someone without permission (the legal public domain) actually lies. A licence granted by the copyright owner to a licensee will set out what that licensee may do with the permission of the right holder ( Report on Common Information Environment and the Creative Commons, p.9).

The social appropriation of new technologies such a for example the hackers movement brought us new visions about who should decide what to publish, how and where. Such communities are organised according to very structured ethical codes and may present a socio-cultural model for the knowledge society , in the sense they usually don’t coop with the established commercial power and promote critical awareness through the exhortation of freedom , passion, and creativity. The same passion for freedom and creativity is present in many authors of e- books and online journals available on the web . The quality of some on-line material may be polemic, open access to information labelled open knowledge does not mean it will be material of good quality. I the end it is always the decision and judgement of the users who will make the difference. And this may raise several issues of quality certification, who should decide? Experts or the end users?

With the same spirit of releasing information that may be useful for the construction of knowledge is the open knowledge foundation The Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) is a not-for-profit organization founded in 2004 and dedicated to promoting open knowledge in all its forms. The Foundation's activities are organized around individual working groups and projects, each focused on a different aspect of open knowledge, but united by a common set of concerns, and a common set of traditions in both etiquette and process that are guided by open discussion , meritocracy and tolerance. Wikipedia is another example of open knowledge . Such sites are not chaotic at all and are coordinate under strict guidelines of ethics and behaviour. They require highly technical skilled volunteers and aim a highly technical skilled audience that is expected to collaborate in the big ‘ Babel tower’ . However all these is information , that I must say again, needs decoders, media literate receptors , able to organize re-organize and reconstruct the information in a very creative and critical process. And this kind of audience able to produce knowledge from information is still an elite of well educated citizens with access to media tools and skills. It is , however , expectable that with the advent of OER, open educational resources access to such education may be enlarged al over the world.

Bibliografía/Referencias

• Lessig, L. ( 2004) Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity) NEW YORK, THE PENGUIN PRESS

• DREYFUS, Suelette y ASSANGE, Julian (1997) Hacking, madness and obsession on the electronic frontier Australia, Mandarin, Reed Books. Available at: http://www.underground-book.com/

• Report on Common Information Environment and the Creative Commons (2005) http://www.intrallect.com/cie-study/

Electronic sites

• http://www.okfn.org/about/

• http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0/

• http://creativecommons.org

Recoñecemento – CompartirIgual (CC-by-sa 3.0 ou calquer outra posterior)