On 04/02/2012 07:23 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Legal Carol, já mandei meus comentários, copio eles abaixo caso vocês queiram incluir algum dos pontos nos comentários de vocês também! Breijos! --comentários (em inglês, perdão não tou c/ tempo pra traduzir)-- Ni! A) Paragraph "c." defines open licensing as a spectrum of different kinds of uses, instead of the usual any kind of use. That is not only confusing and divergent from the wider open movement, but very troubling in that it in practice limits the full social benefit of OER, plagues it with bottomless license compatibility issues, and increases the complexity of understanding and applying OER. We want to include a spectrum in order to accommodate groups at different stages of understanding of OER, but it should appear in the commitment, not the definition. It should say: "Promote and adopt legal frameworks for open licensing and, when not achievable, of alternative licensing. Open licenses refer to legal frameworks which allow any kind of use, optionally requiring preserving the license in modified works. Alternative licenses refer to allowing different kinds of uses. They should facilitate the use, re-use, modification, translation and sharing of educational materials. The educational community should enhance its understanding of open licensing." B) Paragraph "h." mentions open standards, but fails to communicate the pivotal role they play in OER. The declaration is missing a paragraph specific for a commitment to open standards, replicating what paragraph "c." does for open licensing. It should say: "Promote and adopt open standards. Open standards refer to technical frameworks which allow developer independence and interoperability. They should facilitate the use, re-use, modification, translation and sharing of educational materials. The educational community should enhance its understanding of open standards." Including this new paragraph would also allow us to drop the last sentence of paragraph "h." C) Paragraph "h." does not mention the need for modification of OER in its first two sentences. Modification needs facilitation through the proposed means as much as the other actions. The first two sentences should read: "Facilitate the identification, retrieval, sharing and modification of OER. Expanding the use of OER requires that it be simple to find, retrieve and modify them, as well as keeping track of modifications." D) Paragraph "i." is poorly written. First, it explicitly allows authorities to impose "any restrictions they judge necessary" on top of an already conditional statement that begins with "may wish to". There is obviously no need for the double compromise, so the allowance in parenthesis should be removed as it is both redundant and contrasts with the spirit of the declaration. Then, the paragraph proceeds by using the term "under open licenses" instead of "as Open Educational Resources", which would be a more appropriate choice of commitment and would also cover issues regarding open standards and avoid complications from further changes to definitions. -- Well, that's all folks! Thank you, ale