Talk:Open course ware

Disambiguation page
This page should either be deleted, turned into a redirect to a correct page such as open educational resources, or turned into a disambiguation page. Disambiguation may be helpful. I made it into a disambiguation page for now. --Roger Chrisman 22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "courseware". It is "course material". "Courseware", "open courseware" and "open course ware" are not correct English nor are they names of anything. The articles MIT OpenCourseWare and open educational resources are sufficient and correct. --Roger Chrisman 22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Use to Wikipedia
Information from opencourseware should be incorporated into their respective Wikipedia pages! --165.230.46.148 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be good, but would involve a lot of effort, which is probably why no one's done it yet. --Gwern (contribs) 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that the CC license is a NC - non-commercial license. Their courses could not be directly incorporated into Wikimedia Foundation projects. So they are another useful resource, but nothing more. --Gwern (contribs) 01:36 23 November 2006 (GMT)


 * See open educational resources. --Roger Chrisman 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

analogous to open source software
This line should be removed as it is misleading to people. Open Courseware is not analogous to open source software in that Open Courseware is not attainable in source format, which is one of the keystones of open source philosophy. If these materials were truly akin to open source software people would be permitted to download all the materials in some format that would allow them to re-publish the course into another LMS, such as moodle or logicampus. Open Courseware seems to be nothing more than a marketing push from universities that want to look net-savvy.
 * Worse, universities are licensing this stuff non-commercial. That is a problem. GFDL or CC BY-SA is more appropriate and more analogous to the copyleft licenses developed by the open source software movement. (People who create, use, remix and distribute this stuff need to prosper as best they can like everyone else -- non-commercial licensing prevents works from growing and mature in the real world where people need to earn a living by what they do. "Open" does not mean free as in beer, it means free as in freedom, as in copyleft, including freedom to prosper.) --Roger Chrisman 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In the news
See How to go to M.I.T. for free By Gregory M. Lamb | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. BlankVerse 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)