The tender said materials *produced* would need to be freely licensed. If they are using pre-existing materials for part of the course, then not freely licensing those doesn't necessarily contradict the terms of the tender. It is unfortunate, though.
On 1 July 2012 22:47, fabian@unpopular.org.uk wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to know what other people understand as the "open access ethos of Wikimedia UK". The reason I ask is that I have been informed that Midas - who are delivering the Training for Trainers programme - have been arguing that as they chose to use a process which was not written for WMUK, some of their material is not available under a CC license. They have suggested that WMUK pay an additional fee which they are happy to quote for.
As the initial tender specified "An agreement that the training materials produced will be open access under a CC-BY-SA licence" I do not really understand how Midas chose to use non CC material in the process for delivering their course. At first glance it would seem that this is not in compliance with the temrs of the tender.
I must admit that I find Open access and open content as being quite fundamental to Wikipedia, the sister projects and WMUK. This is whaqt I understand by "Supporting Free and Open Knowledge". I personally have a strong commitment to developing "Open Educational Resources" and was particularly looking forward to the Eduwiki conference which has this as one of its themes.
In this context, I don't really understand why WMUK is having difficulty in making sure that its own training programme sits comfortably into the CC framework. I would welcome any comments which would help explain this?
all the best
Fabian (User:Leutha)
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org