 |
 |
Seems like the most important point is the "gratis vs. libre" distinction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_speech It is not the lack of commercial fees that is of the highest significance in these initiatives, it's rather the ready availability of their content for quotation, remixing, and redistribution. Avoiding the lock-up of human knowledge and culture--where wealthy corporations and institutions are the only legitimate remixers--is anathema to vigorous cultural and intellectual exchange (so the argument goes). --LD On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM, peter benjamin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I've never quite understood academic libraries' promotion of "openness." > How does it advance education when libraries are pressured to spend millions > on proprietary databases, students are urged and taught to use them, and > B.I. programs emphasize them? And why should all information be free anyway? > A lot of what's free is marginally useful. Many people in many industries > work very hard and are paid - some very well - to generate, experiment with, > organize, publish, and test information. Who is supposed to be paying them? > Granted, there are many useful databases and content management systems > containing information based on open access. But no serious user group could > ever be satisfied by them alone. And usually, "experts" end up managing them > - which limits access - anyway. -- Lane DeNicola, Ph.D. Lecturer in Digital Anthropology Department of Anthropology University College London http://www.lanedenicola.name