# User:Karitz/My sandbox

<mediawiki xmlns="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.3/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.3/ http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.3.xsd" version="0.3" xml:lang="en">

 <siteinfo>
<sitename>Wikipedia</sitename>
<base>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page</base>
<generator>MediaWiki 1.13alpha</generator>
<case>first-letter</case>
<namespaces>
<namespace key="-2">Media</namespace>
<namespace key="-1">Special</namespace>
<namespace key="0" />
<namespace key="1">Talk</namespace>
<namespace key="2">User</namespace>
<namespace key="3">User talk</namespace>
<namespace key="4">Wikipedia</namespace>
<namespace key="5">Wikipedia talk</namespace>
<namespace key="6">Image</namespace>
<namespace key="7">Image talk</namespace>
<namespace key="8">MediaWiki</namespace>
<namespace key="9">MediaWiki talk</namespace>
<namespace key="10">Template</namespace>
<namespace key="11">Template talk</namespace>
<namespace key="12">Help</namespace>
<namespace key="13">Help talk</namespace>
<namespace key="14">Category</namespace>
<namespace key="15">Category talk</namespace>
<namespace key="100">Portal</namespace>
<namespace key="101">Portal talk</namespace>
</namespaces>
</siteinfo>
<page>
<title>Open educational resources</title>
<id>1584544</id>
<revision>
<id>198770082</id>
<timestamp>2008-03-17T02:15:52Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<id>6163802</id>
</contributor>
<comment>BOT--Reverting edits by Fgafaculty to revision 195910860 (\bwordpress\.com)</comment>
<text xml:space="preserve">Template:Mergeto

OER-Logo
Open educational resources (OER) are an Internet empowered worldwide community effort to create an education commons.

The term "open educational resources" was first adopted at UNESCO's 2002 Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Open educational resources are educational materials and resources offered freely and openly for anyone to use and under some licenses to re-mix, improve and redistribute. Open educational resources include:

• Learning content: full courses, course materials, content modules, learning objects, collections, and journals.
• Tools: Software to support the creation, delivery, use and improvement of open learning content including searching and organization of content, content and learning management systems, content development tools, and on-line learning communities.
• Implementation resources: Intellectual property licenses to promote open publishing of materials, design-principles, and localization of content.

In June 2007, educators at the iCommons iSummit in Dubrovnik joined the open movement worldwide to showcase emerging open education initiatives and to explore ways to better create, share and evolve open educational materials.

In September 2006, the Third Annual Open Education Conference (Community, Culture and Content) was held in Logan, Utah. The last conference was held on September 24-27, 2007 in Logan, Utah.

From 24 October to 2 December 2005 the UNESCO on-line Forum Open course content for higher education took place.

## OER and Open Source

The past 2 years have been marked by a strong increase in the Open Educational Resource (OER) movement and in Open Educational Licenses (like the Creative Commons one). Many of the projects on OER were funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and partly also by the Shuttleworth Foundation that focuses on projects concerning collaborative content creation.

There has been a strong international debate on how to apply OER in practice and the UNESCO chaired a vivid discussion on this through its International Institute of Educational Planning (IIEP).

By the second half of 2006 it also became clear to some of the forerunners that OER and Free / Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) do somehow belong together. As a result the discussion groups of IIEP on OER and FLOSS were merged and forces were further joined through mergers with a related OECD campaign.

What still has not become clear by now to most actors in the OER domain is that there are further links between the OER and the Free / Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) movements, beyond the principles of â€œFREEâ€ and â€œOPENâ€. The FLOSS model stands for more than this and, like e.g. Wikipedia, shows how users can become active â€œresourceâ€ creators and how those resources can be re-used and freely maintained. In OER on the other hand a focus is still on the traditional way of resource creation and role distributions.

FLOSS communities are today known for producing good quality software using a different development approach than proprietary software producer. FLOSS is built by a community of volunteers and might be backed by companies that generate their revenues by providing services related to the software. In more recent years FLOSS communities also gained attention for their community production and support models and regarding their way of knowledge creation and learning. FLOSS communities possess many characteristics that educational settings seek to apply such as:

1. Open and inclusive ethos: everyone can participate, no charges, no deadlines, life long participation
2. Up to date content; everyone can add, edit and update the content
3. Materials are usually the product of many authors with many contributions from people other than authors
4. Frequent releases and updates where product features and community structures are the result of a continuous re-negotiation / reflection process within a continuous development cycle
5. Prior learning outcomes and processes are systematically available through mailing lists, forums, commented code and further instructional materials (re-use)
6. A large support network; provided voluntarily by the community member in a collaborative manner nearly 24/7
7. Free Riders (lurker) welcome paradox â€“ the more the better
8. New ICT solutions are adapted early by the community

Educational settings might be partly aware that FLOSS-like principles can benefit education, but there has been no structured and systematically approach on mapping and transferring them, or to develop new educational models and scenarios around them. The European Union funded FLOSSCom project is likely to be the first attempt to map the open source landscape from an educational point of view, but further research and work still remains to be done.

 This article relating to education is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
</div>cs:Open Educational Resources
   </revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>Open source</title>
<id>22221</id>
<revision>
<id>199086134</id>
<timestamp>2008-03-18T14:13:39Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<id>1262018</id>
</contributor>
<minor/>
<comment>Reverted edits by 12.215.204.78 (talk) to last version by Audriusa</comment>
<text xml:space="preserve">Open source is a set of principles and practices on how to write software, the most important of which is that the source code is openly available. The Open Source Definition, which was created by Bruce Perens<ref>Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) (2004-10-24). "We speak about Free Software". http://fsfeurope.org/documents/whyfs.en.html. Retrieved 2007-12-06. "Bruce Perens, co-founder of the Open Source movement and author of the â€˜Debian Free Software Guidelinesâ€™ and the â€˜Open Source Definitionâ€™ asked us to add his name to the list and make it known that he also speaks about Free Software and supports the â€˜We speak about Free Softwareâ€™ campaign."</ref> and Eric Raymond and is currently maintained by the Open Source Initiative, adds additional meaning to the term: one should not only get the source code but also have the right to use it. If the latter is denied the license is categorized as a shared source license.


## The Open Source Definition

The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative to determine whether or not a software license can be considered open source. The definition was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted primarily by Bruce Perens<ref>, Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, January 1999, ISBN 1-56592-582-3 </ref>.

Under The Open Source Definition, licenses must meet ten conditions in order to be considered open source licenses. Below is a copy of the definition, with unauthorized explanatory additions. There is a link to the original unmodified text below. It was taken under/for fair use.

1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to encourage sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)
3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.
7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.

Richard Stallman originally accepted Debian's document as a good definition of Free Software, but later created the Free software definition - in part to differentiate Free Software from Open Source. <ref></ref> In practice, licenses which meet the open source definition almost always also meet the Free software definition and vice-versa.<ref> : Open Source Software, GNU Project. Free Software Foundation.</ref>

## Proliferation of the term

While the term applied originally only to the source code of software,<ref>Stallman, Richard (2007-09-24). "Why â€œOpen Sourceâ€ misses the point of Free Software". Philosophy of the GNU Project. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 2007-12-06. "However, not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of â€˜open source.â€™ The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term â€˜free software,â€™ but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement."</ref> it is now being applied to many other areas such as open source ecology, a movement to decentralize technologies so that any human can use them. However, it is often misapplied to other areas which have different and competing principles, which overlap only partially. <!-- See open source (journalism) for the only other such definition in widespread use.-->

Opponents of the spread of the label â€œopen source,â€ including Richard Stallman, argue that the requirements and restrictions ensure the continuation of the effort, and resist attempts to redefine the labels. He argues also that most supporters of open source are actually supporters of much more equitable agreements and support re-integration of derived works and that most contributors do not intend to release their work to others who can extend it, hide the extensions, patent those very extensions, and demand royalties or restrict the use of all other users&mdash;all while not violating the open source principles with respect to the initial code they acquired.

## Perens' principles

See The Open Source Definition for the exact operational definition and examples of licenses that satisfy, and do not satisfy, those principles.

Under Perens' definition, open source describes a broad general type of software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent copyright restrictions. The principles, as stated, say absolutely nothing about trademark or patent use and require absolutely no cooperation to ensure that any common audit or release regime applies to any derived works. It is an explicit â€œfeatureâ€ of open source that it may put no restrictions on the use or distribution by any organization or user.

It forbids this, in principle, to guarantee continued access to derived works even by the major original contributors. In contrast to free software or open content licenses, which are often confused with open source but have much more rigorous rules and conventions, open source deliberately errs in favor of allowing any use by any party whatsoever, and offers few or no means or recourses to prevent a free rider problem or deal with proliferation of bad copies that misled end users.

Perhaps because of this flexibility, which facilitates large commercial users and vendors, the most successful applications of open source have been in consortium. These use other means such as trademarks to control bad copies and require specific performance guarantees from consortium members to assure re-integration of improvements. Accordingly they do not need potentially conflicting clauses in licenses.

The loose definition has led to a proliferation of licenses that can claim to be open source but which would not satisfy the share alike provision that free software and open content licenses require. A very common license, the Creative Commons CC-by-nc-sa, requires a commercial user to acquire a separate license for-profit use. This is explicitly against the open source principles, as it discriminates against a type of use or user. However, the requirement imposed by free software to reliably redistribute derived works, does not violate these principles. Accordingly, free software and consortium licenses are a type of open source, but open content isn't insofar as it allows such restrictions.

## Non-software use

The principles of open source have been adapted for many other forms of user generated content. Supporters of the open content movement advocate some restrictions of use, requirements to share changes, and attribution to other authors of the work.

This â€œcultureâ€ or ideology takes the view that the principles apply more generally to facilitate concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies.<ref>Raymond, Eric S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. ed 3.0. 2000.</ref>

Advocates of the open source principles often point to Wikipedia as an example, but Wikipedia has in fact often restricted certain types of use or user, and the GFDL license it uses makes specific requirements of all users that technically violate the open source principles.

## History

Very similar to open standards, researchers with access to the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) used a process called Request for Comments to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary open source work, this 1960's collaborative process led to the birth of the Internet in 1969. There are earlier instances of open source movements and free software such as IBM's source releases of its operating systems in the 1960s and the SHARE user group that formed to facilitate the exchange of such software.

The decision by some people in the free software movement to use the label â€œopen sourceâ€ came out of a strategy session<ref name=osihistory>History of the OSI. Open Source Initiative. 2006.</ref> held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested â€œopen sourceâ€, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term free software. Netscape licensed and released its code as open source under the Netscape Public License and subsequently under the Mozilla Public License.<ref name="Muffatto000">Muffatto, Moreno (2006). Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Imperial College Press. 1860946658.</ref>

The term â€œopen sourceâ€ has been used previously (as early as 1987) with a much wider definition<ref>The Cathedral and the Bazaar</ref><ref>Looking for published DES code</ref> and is still used in that wider meaning by many people who do not necessarily accept the Open Source Initiative's more limited definition of the term.

The term was given a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher Tim O'Reilly. Originally titled the â€œFreeware Summitâ€ and later known as the â€œOpen Source Summitâ€,<ref name=opensourcesummit>Open Source Summit Linux Gazette. 1998.</ref> the event brought together the leaders of many of the most important free and open source projects, including Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Eric Allman, Guido van Rossum, Michael Tiemann, Paul Vixie, Jamie Zawinski of Netscape, and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, the confusion caused by the name â€œfree softwareâ€ was brought up. Tiemann argued for â€œsourcewareâ€ as a new term, while Raymond argued for â€œopen source.â€ The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference that evening. Five days later, Raymond made the first public call to the free software community to adopt the new term. The Open Source Initiative was formed shortly thereafter.<ref>, Open Source Initiative</ref>

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) formed in February 1998 by Raymond and Perens. With about 20 years of evidence from case histories of closed and open development already provided by the Internet, the OSI continued to present the 'open source' case to commercial businesses. They sought to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and wanted to bring major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Perens adapted Debian's Free Software Guidelines to make the The Open Source Definition.<ref>Perens, Bruce. Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. O'Reilly Media. 1999.</ref>

## Widely Used Open Source Products

Open source software (OSS) are built and maintained by a large network of volunteer programmers. Prime examples of open source products are the web-server â€œApacheâ€, the internet address system â€œInternet Protocolâ€, and the internet browser â€œMozilla Firefoxâ€. Yet, one of the most successful programs is the â€œLinuxâ€ operating system, the open source software variant of the UNIX operating system<ref>Michael J. Gallivan, â€œStriking a Balance Between Trust and Control in a Virtual Organization: A Content Analysis of Open Source Software Case Studiesâ€, Info Systems Journal 11 (2001): 277â€“304</ref><ref>Hal Plotkin, â€œWhat (and Why) you should know about open-source softwareâ€ Harvard Management Update 12 (1998): 8-9</ref>

## Criticism

The criticisms of the specific OSI principles are dealt with above as part of the definition and differentiation from other terms. The open content movement does not recognize nor endorse the OSI principles and embraces instead mutual share-alike agreements that require derived works to be re-integrated and treated equitably, e.g. not patented or trademarked to the detriment of the individual contributors/creators.

Another criticism of the Open Source movement is that these projects are not really as self-organizing as their proponents claim. This argument holds that Open Source projects succeed only when they have a strong central manager, even if that manager is a volunteer. The article Open Source Projects Manage Themselves? Dream On. by Chuck Connell explains this viewpoint. Eric Raymond responded to this criticism, and Chuck Connell answered.

The legal and cultural criticisms are both addressed as part of a common set of objections and criticisms by those who prefer share-alike as an organizing principle. This includes Creative Commons which simply ignores the OSI principles and endorses licenses that clearly violate them such as CC-by-nc-sa.

Of the vocal critics Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation (FSF)â€”whose GFDL license is used by Wikipedia itself, flatly opposes the term â€œOpen Sourceâ€ being applied to what they refer to as â€œfree softwareâ€. Although it's clear that legally free software does qualify as open source, he considers that the category is abusive. <ref>Stallman, Richard (2007-06-16). "Why â€œOpen Sourceâ€ misses the point of Free Software". Philosophy of the GNU Project. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 2007-07-23. "As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue of freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, â€˜It's free software and it gives you freedom!â€™â€”more and louder than ever. Every time you say â€˜free softwareâ€™ rather than â€˜open source,â€™ you help our campaign."</ref> They also oppose the professed pragmatism of the Open Source Initiative, as they fear that the free software ideals of freedom and community are threatened by compromising on the FSF's idealistic standards for software freedom.<ref>Stallman, Richard (2007-06-19). "Why â€œFree Softwareâ€ is better than â€œOpen Sourceâ€". Philosophy of the GNU Project. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 2007-07-23. "Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this ideaâ€”and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the â€˜keep quietâ€™ approach to business can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom talk too."</ref><ref>Stallman, Richard (2007-06-16). "Why â€œOpen Sourceâ€ misses the point of Free Software". Philosophy of the GNU Project. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 2007-07-23. "Under the pressure of the movie and record companies, software for individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them. This malicious feature is known as DRM, or Digital Restrictions Management (see DefectiveByDesign.org), and it is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide. [â€¦] Yet some open source supporters have proposed â€˜open source DRMâ€™ software. Their idea is that by publishing the source code of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media, and allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for restricting users like you. Then it will be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it. This software might be â€˜open source,â€™ and use the open source development model; but it won't be free software, since it won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the open source development model succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even worse."</ref>

## Pros and Cons of Open Source Software

It is sometimes said that the open source development process may not be well defined and the stages in the development process, such as system testing and documentation may be ignored. However this is only true for small (mostly single programmer) projects. Larger, successful projects do define and enforce at least some rules as they need them to make the team work possible (see examples [1], [2]). In the most complex projects these these rules may be as strict as reviewing even minor change by two independent developers [3].

Not all OSS initiatives have been successful, for example, SourceXchange and Eazel<ref>Srinarayan Sharma, Vijayan Sugumaran & Balaji Rajagopalan, â€œA Framework for Creating Hybrid-Open Source Software Communitiesâ€, Info Systems Journal 12 (2002): 7â€“25</ref>. Software experts and researchers, who are not convinced by open sourceâ€™s ability to produce quality systems, identify the unclear process, the late defect discovery and the lack of any empirical evidence as the most important problems (collected data concerning productivity and quality)<ref>Ioannis Stamelos, Lefteris Angelis, Apostolos Oikonomou & Georgios L. Bleris, â€œCode Quality Analysis in Open Source Software Developmentâ€ Info Systems Journal 12 (2002): 43â€“60</ref>. It is also difficult to design a commercially sound business model around the open source paradigm. Consequently, only technical requirements may be satisfied and not the ones of the market<ref>Ioannis Stamelos, Lefteris Angelis, Apostolos Oikonomou & Georgios L. Bleris, â€œCode Quality Analysis in Open Source Software Developmentâ€ Info Systems Journal 12 (2002): 43â€“60</ref>. In terms of security, open source may allow hackers to know about the weaknesses or loopholes of the software more easily than closed-source software. It is depended of control mechanisms in order to create effective performance of autonomous agents who participate in virtual organizations<ref>Michael J. Gallivan, â€œStriking a Balance Between Trust and Control in a Virtual Organization: A Content Analysis of Open Source Software Case Studiesâ€, Info Systems Journal 11 (2001): 277â€“304</ref>.