LibreTextsThe #LibreTexts team is happy to continue to support Mizzou Academy's efforts as part of our #LibreNet consortium! Thank you for helping ensure the future of #education is #open.
Dave Lane 🇳🇿
@LibreTexts when you say "#open" what do you mean? Because you keep using that word...
I'd appreciate seeing your definition.
@lightweight thanks for asking. We use #open to primarily mean the 5R's codified via #CreativeCommons and #GNU licensing. We do have some content that doesn't follow this (e.g. content w/ an ND clause); in these cases #open
means #OpenAccess. Everything created on the #LibreTexts site is #OER open.
For code, we refer primarily to GNU and MIT licensed open-source content.
We hope this helps answer your question. Let us know if we can clarify anything else related to our greater #LibreVerse.
@LibreTexts the words #open and #libre are used in the software context to refer to code that is available under an OSI approved open source license, & libre more specifically refers to a #Copyleft (shared-alike) license. Is any of your software open source or Copyleft licensed? What about your flagship software?
I looked on your website and couldn't find any evidence of any open source code to download. Everything I found appeared to be proprietary, i.e. not at all '#open'.
Also, I note that your default content license is CC-BY-SA-NC. Given the ambiguity around what is deemed 'commercial' (if I teach at an educational institution that charges students tuition, is my use 'commercial'?), the NC makes it really not very #open at all - it's certainly not 'free cultural works-approved', right? The real 'open' content license choice would certainly be CC-BY-SA, wouldn't it?
@lightweight our default license is CC BY-SA-NC, but a lot of our content is differently licensed as going through our pages will indicate. We favor a more open license, but our end goal is to help students, and if that means using NC licensed content if there isn't comparable non-NC content available then we will do so.
@LibreTexts As one involved in entirely #Libre (aka #FOSS) educational software & #OER your pervasive use of NC puts me off - our organisation only adopts #OER with a 'free cultural works-approved' license (NC is incompatible)... I wonder what your organisation's trying to achieve with that restriction? That license practice, combined with your proprietary software dependence, makes me question how you can say you're truly a #libre & #open org or promoting the #5Rs.
@lightweight the scale at which we operate for a non-profit is unique in the #OER world. We can all agree that free and freely accessible education is the goal and there is no one-way to get there. It's not perfect, but we are trying!
@LibreTexts it's great you're trying, but you're leaving, quite unapologetically, closed/not-libre elements in your core offering. Realise that your claim of needing proprietary software to scale is unconvincing. Many fully libre solutions scale far beyond your requirements today. As you explain, it seems you're neither really #open nor #libre and your use of those words dilutes their meanings, which are all about principle. That, unfortunately, is #openwashing/#librewashing.
@LibreTexts you could remedy that situation by either changing your brand & your marketing messaging to remove 'libre' & 'open', or you could change your policies to ensure your #OER is available under free cultural works-approved licenses and your *entire* software stack is openly licensed libre software. Short of that, I'll continue to voice my misgivings.