Year 1 review - the impact of open source software on education

I have tried to tie together some of the themes that were generated in the Impact of OSS and OER on Education Series. I have posted the results on WikiEducator under the title Overview of the OSS and OER in Education Series . It is now available for review, editing, critique, etc. Please feel free to visit the wiki, update and add to it.

One of the important underlying themes that I noted while reviewing the posts and dialog was implicit and explicit reference to Commons Based Peer Production (CBPP). CBPP is essentially the model that describes why OSS and OER work. It accounts for why individuals forming groups of varying sizes will create information and cultural assets with a net common-good impact for non-monetary rewards.

The model is based on the assertion that information resources are truly public-good resources in that they are non-rival ; that is, the use of an information resource by an additional individual does not reduce the source of information, unlike physical resources. The model helps explain the nature of motivation and incentives that would normally be provided by restrictive intellectual property licensing, and identifies the circumstances under which CBPP is more efficient than other forms of organization.

The grist for the CBPP model is being able to treat information as a “ Public Good .” That is, it can be freely used as a source for the generation of new information. Without source information, the cost of producing new information increases. In addition, if the information product is treated as anything other than a non-rival public good, the motivation for contributing to a commons in which the right to use is guaranteed is virtually eliminated and the pool of available resources is diminished.

Given the current practice of converting information assets generated through public funding into private property, we might ask, “is CBPP is a viable model for sustained development?” This question, in the context of University Research Patents, is thoughtfully treated in a recent posting on e-Literate titled Should Universities Patent Their Research? Universities Say Yes. But should they? . In the posting by guest blogger James Farmer, rampant patenting for short-term gain is placed in opposition to the social good that can come from forgoing patents without a well articulate social-good rationale. There is a strong voice for socially responsible patenting (and non-patenting) and a recognition that removing information from the public commons can have a net negative impact on society.

Although we can point to successful applications of OSS, which inspired Yochai Benkler to articulate CBPP in his article Coase’s penguin, Linux and the nature of the firm , it is important to ask under what conditions is the environment simply too toxic or (open information) impoverished to support the production of information assets based on the value of an open information commons.

Comments