2,174 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2015
    1. Moodlerooms, now owned by Blackboard Remote-Learner UK, now owned by Blackboard Netspot, now owned by Blackboard Nivel Siete, now owned by Blackboard

      During MoodleMoot, the notion that one organisation could “own” different institutional members of the Moodle Association was brushed away. But it sounds like a distinct possibility. Maybe not Blackboard but, say, a publishing house or an EdTech vendor…

    2. alliance of Moodle service providers that currently collaborate on Moodle-related projects of mutual interest
    1. In open education we have generally focused on the rights that individuals have to remix content, while not providing or using publishing tools that make it easy to fork content in ways that make sense to non-programming communities. Wikity attempts to apply the tools and logic of forking to WordPress, the world's most popular web content platform. Content published in Wikity is easily forked to new sites while maintaining an attribution trail and keeping track of past versions.

      Mike Caulfield is working on WordPress software to make Federated Wiki concepts accessible to a wider audience. http://wikity.cc/ is the most recent result.

    1. We find ourselves at a decisive moment. This is the time to recognize that the very existence of our massive knowledge commons is an act of collective civil disobedience. It is the time to emerge from hiding and put our names behind this act of resistance. You may feel isolated, but there are many of us. The anger, desperation and fear of losing our library infrastructures, voiced across the internet, tell us that. This is the time for us custodians, being dogs, humans or cyborgs, with our names, nicknames and pseudonyms, to raise our voices. Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don't let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the flowers - clean the volcanoes.
    2. In Elsevier's case against Sci-Hub and Library Genesis, the judge said: "simply making copyrighted content available for free via a foreign website, disserves the public interest"

      The copyrighted material in question is academic research, much of which is paid for by public funds. This judge is confusing "public" with "publishing companies". How much has the academic journal scam cost the public?

    1. Open education is a means, a way of doing something; it isn’t something. That something is for individuals to arrive at however they want to get there–that’s the point of making it all “open.” I hope they share that awesomeness when they arrive at it, but they don’t have to.

      Process not product.

    1. The goal of education is for the educator to become less and less needed for learners to learn.

      The reverse of the typical “goal displacement”. Instead of focusing on ensuring our continued employment as “instructors”, we want to make sure learning happens. Deep down, we know we’ll find ways to work, no matter what happens. The comparison with health can be interesting. If doctors had an incentive to keep people sick, society wouldn’t benefit much. Allegedly, Chinese healthcare provides incentives for doctors to help people stay healthy. Sounds like it’d make sense, somehow. Yet education and health are both treated like industries. We produce graduates, future employees, etc. Doctors produce people who fit a pattern of what it means to be healthy in a given social context. There’s even a factory-chain metaphor used when some people apply “lean management” to hospitals or colleges. Not that the problem is with the management philosophy itself. But focusing so much on resource allocation blinds us from a deep reality: as we are getting healthier and more “learned”, roles are shifting.

    1. legal changes often lead to negative outcomes. New laws can limit use, introduce new payments or make open licensing incompatible with the given legal system. In such cases, OER advocates need to take a stance in defense of the existing rules.
    2. not all of the resources needed for education will be openly licensed — for example, modern education requires use of cultural resources that are in copyright and will never be openly licensed. We therefore need good and balanced rules allowing educators acting in the public interest to use these resources.
    3. the development of OER provides proof for the need of strong user rights in education. By looking at effects of successful OER projects we can describe a future educational reality, in which institutions, educators, and students benefit from a more liberal copyright law. Part of the success of Wikipedia as an education tool is the fact that no one accessing the site, or copying it for students, needs to worry: “Is this legal?”
    1. Among the most useful summaries I have found for Linked Data, generally, and in relationship to libraries, specifically. After first reading it, got to hear of the acronym LODLAM: “Linked Open Data for Libraries, Archives, and Museums”. Been finding uses for this tag, in no small part because it gets people to think about the connections between diverse knowledge-focused institutions, places where knowledge is constructed. Somewhat surprised academia, universities, colleges, institutes, or educational organisations like schools aren’t explicitly tied to those others. In fact, it’s quite remarkable that education tends to drive much development in #OpenData, as opposed to municipal or federal governments, for instance. But it’s still very interesting to think about Libraries and Museums as moving from a focus on (a Web of) documents to a focus on (a Web of) data.

    2. Anyone can say Anything

      The “Open World Assumption” is central to this post and to the actual shift in paradigm when it comes to moving from documents to data. People/institutions have an alleged interest in protecting the way their assets are described. Even libraries. The Open World Assumption makes it sound quite chaotic, to some ears. And claims that machine learning will solve everything tend not to help the unconvinced too much. Something to note is that this ability to say something about a third party’s resource connects really well with Web annotations (which do more than “add metadata” to those resources) and with the fact that no-cost access to some item of content isn’t the end of the openness.

  2. Nov 2015
    1. “open” as in students can modify it

      In FACET’s Quick Hits, it’s called the “Collaborative Syllabus”. Works well in some cases and can open up new possibilities.

    2. it apparently meant allowing students to see the syllabus before they register

      There are initiatives to do much more than this, including using Open Data on syllabi to delve down into course content.

    3. Encouraging students to curate their own content

      Learners already create and curate a lot of “content”. Let’s encourage them to do more with it, even if they keep it somewhat closed. Much of it doesn’t have to be so high-minded, as even forum posts can do a lot to the learning process. “Open Education” isn’t merely about content and a lot of work in the 5Rs can be done in learning communities.

    4. if free textbooks or OER offer learners free access to good quality knowledge

      Big “if”. And it’s one of those cases where defining those terms (“access”, “knowledge”, “free”, “good quality”, even “learners”…) is important but risky. We don’t want sterile debates, but we need to acknowledge that we may not be talking about the same things.

    5. The real problem with textbooks, though, is that focusing on them is focusing on content. When learning, and open education, should focus more on process (a conversation on this from a year ago across my blog, Jim Groom’s, Mike Caulfield’s and David Wiley’s).
    6. “why textbooks?”
    1. Some practitioners of open education have been dismayed at the recent emphasis on "free textbooks", which implies that cost-cutting is the main goal of openness. But it should not be forgotten that for many teachers and students, open textbooks provide an introduction to broader open practices.

    1. With over 36 million visitors each month, the San Francisco-based platform-capitalist company Academia.edu is hugely popular with researchers. Its founder and CEO Richard Price maintains it is the ‘largest social-publishing network for scientists’, and ‘larger than all its competitors put together’. Yet posting on Academia.edu is far from being ethically and politically equivalent to using an institutional open access repository, which is how it is often understood by academics. Academia.edu’s financial rationale rests on the ability of the venture-capital-funded professional entrepreneurs who run it to monetize the data flows generated by researchers. Academia.edu can thus be seen to have a parasitical relationship to a public education system from which state funding is steadily being withdrawn.

      Includes links to related articles.

    1. The four freedoms don’t limit us as creators — they open possibilities for us as creators and consumers. When you apply them to software, you get Linux, Webkit/Chrome, and WordPress. When you apply them to medicine, you get the Open Genomics Engine, which is accelerating cancer research and bringing us closer to personalized treatment. When you apply them to companies, you get radically geographically distributed, results-based organizations like Automattic. When you apply them to events you get TEDx, Barcamp, and WordCamp. When you apply them to knowledge, you get Wikipedia.
    2. as of December 2013, 21% of websites are powered by WordPress. One-fifth of the web is built with a tool that anyone can use, change, or improve, whenever and however they want (even more when you count other open source projects
    3. B2 was ultimately abandoned by its creator. If I’d been using it under a proprietary license, that would have been the end — for me, and all its other users. But because we had freedoms 2 and 3, Mike Little and I were able to use the software as a foundation
    4. I’ve spent a third of my life building software based on Stallman’s four freedoms, and I’ve been astonished by the results. WordPress wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for those freedoms, and it couldn’t have evolved the way it has. WordPress was based on a program called B2/cafelog that predated it by two years. I was using B2 because it had freedoms 0 and 1
    1. The Free Software Foundation's definition of free software, originally expressed by Richard Stallman. It is free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Software offered for a fee can still be free. A program is free software if the users have four essential freedoms:

      0. Run the program as you wish, for any purpose.<br> 1. Study the source code, and change it as you please.<br> 2. Copy and distribute the original program.<br> 3. Copy and distribute modified versions.

    1. Northern Virginia Community College’s Extended Learning Institute (ELI) and open courseware provider Lumen Learning announced a collaboration to publish 24 online college courses for two complete degree programs. All courses were developed for zero student cost using open educational resources (OER)
    1. Companies that open source a project and then abandon it need to publicly acclaim the people taking over the project and make a clear change in ownership.
    2. Companies need to have realistic expectations of the work-life balance of open source maintainers.

      When you hire an open source developer, you hire someone who works all the time--not just 8-5, not just at a desk, not just on that one pet project that management's currently excited about. They work on that, they work on the related libraries, they work on projects that use those libraries, they work on the next great version of the libraries the company will need in two more years.

      Plan for your own future by letting your developers explore it for you. They already are...even before you've hired them.

    3. effectively contribute and participate in upstream projects

      If anything is missing with regards to open source within companies (of all sizes), it's this situation.

      Teaching "companies" (or rather the entire management stack/chain) how to "effectively contribute and participate in upstream projects" could change the game for those companies, the projects they interface with, and certainly for the developers (inside and outside of the companies).

    4. They should be treated like adults though and allowed to spend what they see as an appropriate amount of time working on the project versus other projects for the company. Trying to quanitfy/limit the amount of time leads to conflict and strife and unhappy management and employees. It doesn't work and it's not a long term, maintainable solution.

      In the end, it's a quest of trust. Hire people who work on the open source projects your company depends on. Then, let them keep doing it--for pay...at last!--and expect them to continue to balance the worlds of open source and business...as they likely already were, but now with the needle tilted slightly (or more, one would hope) in favor of working on open source code.

      It's like picking flowers. If you pick them and bring them inside, they die. Plant them in some fertile ground, however, and let them keep doing their thing. (OK, that was a bit strained...but hopefully you see my point ^_^).

    5. Some projects work to actively alienate corporations trying to contribute because of ideology. This is not the path that will lead us to sustainable open source software development and companies that can contribute responsibly.

      :+1:

      /me pats IBM on the back one more time. :)

      There are (a very few) companies that balance these worlds of community and commerce well.

      If you know of another, please reply!

    6. The company refuses to expand the core development team with non-employees

      From what I've seen these projects are often licensed under the AGPL and essentially amount to "loss leader source." Community === "add on builders" and "consumers" in the minds of the product team not future "land owners."

      Be sure the project is community lead (or in transition that way at least!) before you sign that CLA...or even bother with that patch.

    7. TwitterOSS team (hint: their funding as a department was cut)

      Sad news.

    8. sometimes you find a bounty like this one where a company has added a significant amount to a bug

      Unsurprisingly (to me) that company is IBM.

      Keep up the greatness!

    1. All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua, one of the top journals in linguistics, last week resigned to protest Elsevier’s policies on pricing and its refusal to convert the journal to an open-access publication that would be free online. As soon as January, when the departing editors’ noncompete contracts expire, they plan to start a new open-access journal to be called Glossa.”
    1. open access

      Not really what we tend to mean by “open access” in academia, but closer to “open education” than one might assume. It can be less about the cost of textbooks than about inclusion. And diversity.

    1. This article included an estimate from the system that further backs up the $530 – $640 figures. [Hanley’s] rough estimate: As of a few years ago, learners at the 23-campus, 460,200-student university system were spending $300 million a year on course materials — about $651 per student per school year.

      This graph is the kicker. It is NOT about textbook costs, it's about how much students can afford to spend. The amount hasn't changed, or has gone down, since '02!

    1. Open Education We believe that educational opportunities should be available to all learners. Creating an open education ecosystem involves making learning materials, data, and educational opportunities available without restrictions imposed by copyright laws, access barriers, or exclusive proprietary systems that lack interoperability and limit the free exchange of information.

      DOE office of ed tech

    1. “Instead of having one prescribed way to do things that comes from a textbook, kids can do things where they’re truly interested,” says Lori Secrist. “When they’re truly interested, they’re engaged. And when they’re engaged, they learn.”
    1. creation of an OER culture among faculty

      Pretty much what we’re trying to enable. Culture change is organic, but there are ways to empower those actors who are pushing things in an appropriate direction, in terms of Open Education.

  3. Oct 2015
    1. Welche OA-Lizenzen verwenden andere Journals in DOAJ?

    2. Was ist mit "Änderungen" an wisssenschaftlichen Texten gemeint? Wie muss ich mir das vorstellen? Geht es nur um das Wiederveröffenltichen von Textteilen z.B. in Lehrbüchern oder tatsächlich um das Remixen von Sätzen?

    1. long time curating these tomes

      Part of the argument for OER might come from more efficient ways to curate this type of material. Creating textbooks is some people’s main goal, but there’s a whole lot to be said about Open Coursepacks in Linked Open Data.

    2. If you deal with PDFs online, you’ve probably noticed that some are different from others. Some are really just images.

      First step in Linked Open Data is moving away from image PDFs.

    1. Technology is the only way to dramatically expand access to knowledge. Why should students be limited to a textbook that was printed two years ago, and maybe designed 10 years ago, when they could have access to the world's best and most up-to-date textbook?

      Can serve well as an OER quote.

    1. He gave the example of digital textbooks which can be updated as an example of how online technology could be better than traditional methods.

      Great argument for OERs, no? And Open Annotations, for that matter.

    1. The second level of Open Access is Gold Open Access, which requires the author to pay the publishing platform a fee to have their work placed somewhere it can be accessed for free. These fees can range in the hundreds to thousands of dollars.

      Not necessarily true. This is a misconception. "About 70 percent of OA journals charge no APCs at all. We’ve known this for a decade but it’s still widely overlooked by people who should know better." -Suber http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2015/09/opinion/not-dead-yet/an-interview-with-peter-suber-on-open-access-not-dead-yet/#_

    2. Faculty Senate wants work published through Open Access

  4. Sep 2015
    1. The W3C Annotation Working Group has a joint deliverable with the W3C Web Application Working Group called “Robust Anchoring”. This deliverable will provide a general framework for anchoring; and, although defined within the framework of annotations, the specification can also be used for other fragment identification use cases. Similarly, the W3C Media Fragments specification [media-frags] may prove useful to address some of the use cases. Finally, the Streamable Package Format draft, mentioned above, also includes a fragment identification mechanism. Would that package format be adopted for EPUB+WEB, that fragment identification may also come to the fore as an important mechanism to consider.

      Anchors are a key issue. Hope that deliverable will suffice.

    1. it was only a problem for researchers in the developing world

      the problem of predatory open access seems highly contained to just a few countries

      -- Shen and Bjork, "'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics", http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150910/6b26c21e/attachment-0001.pdf

      I agree with the broader point that just because this affects certain regions more, doesn't mean it's a problem. However, it's more a result of the structural incentives of: 1.) accreditation by publication; and 2.) the Anglo-American dominance of the research space at present. Researchers from elsewhere are being badly advised (and then scammed) on how to play the Anglophone system. You might just as well say that this should be addressed, rather than making it the OA community's responsibility to fix the proxies-for-quality problem

    1. Keyan Tomaselli does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

      As people have pointed out in the comments, author is Editor in Chief of Critical Arts. Relevant for potential conflict of interest given this paragraph:

      Taylor & Francis in particular, via a development strategy with selected South African journals, initially facilitated by the National Research Foundation and Unisa Press, helped to position many of these titles as global, rather than only local. In so doing, they catapulted South African authors into global research networks.

  5. Aug 2015
    1. While these features have connected untold millions and created new forms of social organization, they also come at a cost. Material seems to vanish almost as quickly as it is created, disappearing amid broken links or into the constant flow of the social media “stream.” It can be hard to distinguish fact from falsehood. Corporations have stepped into this confusion, organizing our browsing and data in decidedly closed, non-transparent ways. Did it really have to turn out this way?

      La web, utopía y distopía en simultánea.

    1. In an academic world ever more infiltrated by fraudsters, con artists and pirates, one can still trust the content and academic integrity of scientific society journals and long-standing corporate publishers. They protect against article and journal cloning, identity theft, bogus journals, forgery, author substitution, fake metrics, and prevent outright intellectual property theft.

      This is an incredibly conservative stance that seems to imply that only existing entities can ever be trusted. These same entities, however, are often for-profit, making over a billion dollars per year profit, even while universities cannot afford to subscribe to all the material they need.

      Furthermore, using publisher brand as a measure of trust is not sound, as the recent cases of mass retractions and peer-review scams show: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43761/title/Another-Mass-Retraction/

    1. However, if an open access version of a text is available, this must always be treated as the primary text. Here the commercial version of the text becomes the secondary version and it should always be cited second and in a manner that makes this completely clear. For instance, after the primary reference to the full text, you could write: ‘Also available as: ….’

      Would be interesting to write a tool that could take a paper as input and replace all citations with references to freely available versions

    1. open access

      High quality editing and publication costs money, and if open access is a priority it is important to ensure that funding is available to make it possible for the important work that both the editors and the publishers do is still carried out.

    1. 77 cents of every dollar spent on textbooks go to publishers. Of those 77 cents, the publishing company makes about 18 cents in pure profit, while spending 15 cents on marketing, and roughly 32 percent to cover costs (paper, printing, employee salaries, etc). At the same time, the author - the person who dedicated hundreds of hours of research to write the book – only gets about 12 cents on the dollar on average.
    1. The Training and Learning Architecture (TLA) encompasses a set of standardized Web service specifications and Open Source Software (OSS) designed to create a rich environment for connected training and learning.
    1. Journals in which all peer reviewed scholarly articles are online available without any restrictions and for which an Article Processing Charge (APC) has been paid.

      This is not what gold OA means. Gold OA refers exclusively to material made OA by the publisher. It does not refer to any particular business model. This is a gross misclassification.

  6. Jul 2015
    1. Digital writing is the first kind of writing that does not reduce recorded knowledge to a rivalrous object. If we all have the right equipment, then we can all have copies of the same digital text without excluding one another, without multiplying our costs, and without depleting our resources.

      Suber, Peter. Open Access. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2013. 47.

    1. Gold open access provides everyone with access to articles during all stages of publication, with processing charges paid by the author(s).

      As conceived of in most of the literature, "gold open access" refers to the means of dissemination (done by the publisher), not any one specific business model. Gold open access does not intrinsically mean, however, that the author pays and, indeed, this was not integral to the term as it was coined by Stevan Harnad. At the time of writing in mid 2014, the majority of gold venues listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals do not operate on the basis of article processing charges and instead fund their operations through other means.

      For more on this, see:

      Suber, Peter. Open Access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.

      Eve, Martin Paul. Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies and the Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

      (Both books available freely online; gold open access.)

      http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/files/2015/02/OpenGlossary1.pdf http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

    1. a chaotic way of managing a project as that project gets big

      Don't let it get big? Maybe.

    2. the nature of low-bandwidth communication on the internet probably just exposes you to misunderstandings and you end up stressing out over things vs being the friends you normally would.
    1. The odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to closed access journals,” say Teplitskiy and co.
  7. Jun 2015
    1. equal access

      I'm thinking through what "equal engagement" might be. Access is s starting point. What about the tools to do something with the access granted?

    1. While the process of developing critical editions will still take some time, Phase 1 of Open Modernisms places reliable texts in student hands through the MVP and Open Modernisms, more or less immediately and without the cost of the book to house it.
  8. May 2015
    1. Engineers who worked on a lot of open source projects had high levels of creativity
    2. Developers felt more ownership over their work, and pride in it
    3. Open source developers work well together because of their similar ways of thinking
    4. Peer pressure from GitHub—having their name on a project—was a big motivator for engineers to work harder and not let the community of users down.
    5. If they leave, they're likely to keep working on the project, so you're still getting value for free!
    1. Author and peer reviewer anonymity haven’t been shown to have an overall benefit, and they may cause harm. Part of the potential for harm is if journals act as though it’s a sufficiently effective mechanism to prevent bias.
    2. Peer reviewers were more likely to substantiate the points they made (9, 14, 16, 17) when they knew they would be named. They were especially likely to provide extra substantiation if they were recommending an article be rejected, and they knew their report would be published if the article was accepted anyway (9, 15).
  9. Apr 2015
    1. The best currently available evidence shows that the methods and results of clinical trials are routinely withheld from doctors, researchers, and patients [2–5], undermining our best efforts at informed decision making.
    1. A good educational system should have three purposes: it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them; and, finally, furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known.

      I think this sums up the goals of Teach Like Mozilla and the #mozacademy

    1. To suggest that faculty are innocently waiting to be pounced on by predators is to deny their agency and their ability to make choices about their own work. There may be days where that metaphor seems apt, but I think overall this is a damaging mentality to librarians interested in promoting new models of scholarly communication.

      A nice point about how librarians need to be thoughtful in the way they present the pitfalls of the emerging open access model of scholarly communication.

    1. “fluency”

      I think I am a little adverse to the term. Fluency (same reason I don't like literacy) is dichotomous. You are fluent or you are not. For me its more of an Open Mentor Continuum or "The Teach Like a Mozillian Continuum"

    2. ’d love to hear thoughts on this approach to placing a lens on the Web Literacy Map. Please ask questions, push back, give feedback to this thinking-in-progress.

      I think you have gotten far in the unique characteristics of effective blended teaching. Specifically the online stuff.

      There are other fundamental elements there could be missing. I also wonder if the grid approach if most beneficial. There maybe better heuristics to represent what it means to be a webmaker mentor or leader.

  10. Mar 2015
    1. Any contributor to our open source projects is already familiar with a bit of software that we use internally and would require less training if they joined the company.
    2. At Twitter, our open source program has a team of developer advocates focused on growing open source ecosystems which are important for us to ensure they thrive and evolve to our benefit.
    3. hosting events, speaking at conferences, reaching out to contributors, writing documentation to lower the barrier of entry to new contributors
    4. suffers from an over protective legal organization
    5. respecting open source licenses to making it easier for engineers to open source code and ensuring we’re giving back to the open source projects we depend on
    1. Yet, these are not certain, and the future of the ecosystem as I hope to shape it depends upon a growing core of influencers who are genuinely committed to and uncompromising about the value of the commons.

      Lets expand this beyond badges and commit to an protecting an open web.

    2. democratizing technology and authoritarian technology.

      I wonder how tool is separated from technology. Is technology different from a tool or is every tool a new technology? And i f we mean that is the case does that mean every tool we have ever touched either has a democratizing technology or an authoritarian technology?

      And if is every tool we have touched is the tendency in the tool or is us?

    3. There are inherent affordances and limitations to the technology that make some things possible and other things more likely. At the same time, there are complex individual and societal forces that impact how it develops, especially the power structures that develop alongside a given technology.

      getting at the definition of technology.

    4. but they are instead examining how it developed in a give context.

      Reaffirming a tool is used is defined by affordances, agent, and context.

    5. We saw this happen with Microsoft. It started out with a big vision: How do we get a PC on every desk and in every home? It was profoundly democratizing.

      This is not true. Closed and proprietary was baked into microsofts DNA since Day.

      Though Microsoft today proves Bull's thesis. As they have become a loser, or less of a winner they have started to shake things up. Windows 10 maybe kinda free. Office Apps everywhere.

    1. Here’s a presentation at the 2013 Personal Democracy Forum that provides a little more context for our project.

      This is an inspiring talk.

    1. lowRISC is producing fully open hardware systems. From the processor core to the development board, our goal is to create a completely open computing eco-system. Our open-source SoC (System-on-a-Chip) designs will be based on the 64-bit RISC-V instruction set architecture. Volume silicon manufacture is planned as is a low-cost development board. There are more details on our plans in these slides from a recent talk lowRISC is a not-for-profit organisation working closely with the University of Cambridge and the open-source community.
  11. ronja.twibright.com ronja.twibright.com
    1. Ronja is a free technology project for reliable optical data links with a current range of 1.4km and a communication speed of 10Mbps full duplex. Applications of this wireless networking device include backbone of free, public, and community networks, individual and corporate Internet connectivity, and also home and building security. High reliability and availability linking is possible in combination with WiFi devices. The Twibright Ronja datalink can network neighbouring houses with cross-street ethernet access, solve the last mile problem for ISP’s, or provide a link layer for fast neighbourhood mesh networks.
    1. RISC-V: free and open instruction set architecture (ISA). including "rocket chip" cpu reference implementation.

  12. Feb 2015
    1. Did you think people would get angry about clones. "2048 was based on 1024, which apparently is a clone of Threes," he says succinctly. "I had no idea of this, and I didn't even know Threes existed, before releasing 2048. Not thinking that 2048 would be successful, I didn't really consider any of the possible repercussions."
  13. Dec 2014
  14. Nov 2014
    1. Ich vermute sehr, dass offenes Annotieren im Web eine zentrale digitale Kommunikationsform der näheren Zukunft wird.

      Dies gilt jedenfalls, wenn Annotationstools so einfach und intuitiv gestaltet sind wie dieser Annotator.

    1. If we believe in equality, if we believe in participatory democracy and participatory culture, if we believe in people and progressive social change, if we believe in sustainability in all its environmental and economic and psychological manifestations, then we need to do better than slap that adjective “open” onto our projects and act as though that’s sufficient or — and this is hard, I know — even sound.
    2. that the moments when students generate “education data” is, historically, moments when they come into contact with the school and more broadly the school and the state as a disciplinary system
  15. Oct 2014
    1. WordPress, Drupal and many other complete web applications come ready made for deployment.

      Even if cheap, I wonder what the TCO (total cost of ownership is like)

  16. Jun 2014
    1. Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.

      "Technology leadership is....defined by...the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world's most talented engineers."

      The key components of this applied "open source philosophy" seem to be about increasing input, visibility, and collective motivation by taking fear out of the interaction equation.

  17. Apr 2014
  18. Mar 2014
    1. A traditional bookseller, no matter how large he is, will not be able to justify the investment necessary for creating a consumer proposition in the range of Kindle, Kobo or Nook. But he is able to afford the Tolino white-label Ecosystem. And then suddenly he is able to compete at the same level as the digital global players.

      open standards allow small players to enter the competition!

  19. Feb 2014
  20. Jan 2014
    1. If federally funded research is going to broadly benefit society, it has to be widely accessible, not just to curious private citizens, but also to industries, private organizations, and federal, state, and local governments where scientific knowledge can help create new products, solve problems, educate students, and make policy decisions.

      It is The People who will most benefit from open access to federally funded research.

    2. Giving the public what it paid for sounds noble, but from where I sit, a scientist at a well-funded research university, ensuring that research papers are available to the public for free seems pointless.

      This seems to be a comment sentiment-- the open access arguments don't address the individual "what's in it for me?" question. And it is not wrong for people to be asking this question-- not just what benefits them, but also what misery are they in for if they start down this unknown (and possibly treacherous) path? It is the rare few intrepid leaders in this space that can see beyond the immediate benefits and risks-- that can see a new world of science that could exist and are willing to make the epicly dangerous journey along with their loyal argonauts who can withstand the siren song and sail safely through the academic scylla and charybdis.