(this looks like a bug, I am quoting @akoutropoulos, not @clhendricksbc)
I would agree when the translation is creative, for instance if it is a translation of classical literature from one language to another. There are many cases however where I find it harder to really consider translation a different work. What if I just take something and Google Translate it to French? What if it is translated through Duolingo? Through this?
Still struggling to get caught up but Iāve been enjoying reading everyoneās perspectives and having the opportunity to view the results of the survey from last year. I always see some new way of thinking about "open"
Starting from a general perspective (my understanding/thoughts) about āopennessā is that it is primarily about accessibility to learning or at least the possibility of learning. Itās about sharing and helping each other. And learning doesnāt have to be structured - openness is about access to data to help you make decisions, access to design, to conversations, to events, to knowledge. What you do with it is your challenge.
Itās about seeing the world in a positive light and believing in the value of collaborating rather than competing; sharing what you know and what you do implies a belief that people will see the sharing as a benefit and not as a way to target you or tear you down.
In education (my field), āopennessā is often interpreted as about open textbooks, or open courses, or open technologies for learning. I have some serious concerns about relying on textbooks at all, and I donāt believe that we can call them āopenā if they are provided to courses and instructors who donāt reshare what they learn. I echo the feelings expressed by several other participants in this course, that there are degrees of āopennessā but I always believe that the primary responsibility of accessing and benefiting from āopennessā is to contribute back in some way. Sometimes that means sharing into a network or to a wiki or repository; at other times it just means taking the time to share what youāve learned with others who can benefit - and doing it without being paid.
And another aspect of āopennessā is the transparency of classroom walls (figuratively speaking if you teach online;-) I think teachers have to learn that itās OK not to know everything (who can these days) and āopennessā means being open to the knowledge and expertise of your students. Learning should never be a one-way street.
So far Iāve found all the posts Iāve read by you to be thoughtful and useful. Iām not sure Iād pay attention to machine guidelines. Post a poll and see how many people want you to hold back - I donāt. Keep on commenting!
Itās amazing how many people feel uncomfortable with this. I think, partly, itās because knowledge was so inaccessible in years past (think fatherās and grand-fatherās generations) where the teachers and professors were revered as one of the points of knowledge in a society, whereas today information is widely available (big asterisk here about the privilege of having access) and the information is no longer what is considered āknowledgeā but being able to analyze it and evaluate it (and its veracity and applicability) carry more weight. This is course isnāt recognized as much thus far because we are still transitioning (IMHO) from a system where information was the currently to evaluation being the currently.
Even though I am not an economist (nor do I play one on the internet) it seems to me that once something is comodified (information in this case), something with else will come in and take its place.
I agree with both of you, but even if the instructor feels comfortable with this it can bring new challenges, especially in conducting large classes. Some are, but not everyone is an expert. And an expert at one topic can be unknowledgeable on another. Is it desirable to mark a distinction between students? How can the experts manifest themselves? How to leverage their expertise most efficiently for the common good? Should they be entrusted with more ārightsā? What are the risks?
Hi @JohnJohnston: I think people should feel free to post their views on their blog for future reference (thatās what I like to do), and also point people to that from this board. I commented on your blog, but will also post that comment here in case anyone else wants to see it!
I really appreciate your points here about playing in the open, and
learning, as well as making connections to others thereby. I so much
enjoy playing digitally, and have just thought of it mostly as a guilty
pleasure and fun with friends, but it certainly is an excellent way to
learn and to make lasting connections as well.
Iām curious how youāve recently been challenged about the idea
that working in the open is the best way to work online. Can you explain?
These are exactly the sorts of questions we mean to be asking/talking about here! I do think that the term āopenā is quite ambiguous. It can mean different things when youāre talking about open education, open source software, open access publishing, open data, open government, and more.
I think, though, that many people would say for something to be open, it should be available to more than a small group of people. So, for example, when I teach a university class, if I just make my materials available to those who have registered for the course, I think many would say thatās not open. But if I make them available publicly on the web, with a license that allows for others to use them and revise them and redistribute them, then most would say thatās open (I think).
This hits on some of the concerns Iāve heard about openness, including that one loses control over what one has created when one lets others do what they will with it. Some are also concerned about spending a lot of time and effort on something and then letting others use it for free. Myself, Iām not too worried about that, but I guess if no one else shared and it was just me or a few of us sharing, then maybe Iād feel different. I guess I feel okay about giving things away in part because there are other things out there that others have shared, so it kind of comes back around. But if it didnāt? I might change my mind, perhaps. I havenāt thought about that before!
Some pretty impressive data this is based on! 
Now youāve got me wondering what buttons, cats, and giving a damn have to do with each other. I do give a damn about cats myself, and sure do spend a lot of time pushing buttons to see what they do, but am finding it hard to give a damn about many of those buttons. Sigh.
Iāve just read three different posts that say some version of this, while reading through the threads tonight, and I really, really appreciate this point. Itās something Iāve not really thought about before, and itās spurring me to write a blog post. Iāve been so busy facilitating the course this week I havenāt had time to blog, but this idea is really capturing my attention and itās time to do so. I like your point that maybe we shouldnāt call textbooks (or anything else) open unless those who use them share what theyāve learned, perhaps revise them in some way.
Would it be okay if I quoted you and linked to this post in my blog? Gonna write it in the next couple of days, hopefully.
Now, I wonder: can you explain a bit further what it might mean to share what one has learned by using some open work? Maybe the ideas one has, how one has applied what the book or video or other work has said? Something else perhaps?
even further afield than @HybridPed and academic publishing, look at what Cory Doctorow (strong tech background) has to say about open and publishing open.
a lot on the website, include books for free download (but not the most navigable site/easy to find thing on site) http://craphound.com/
interview https://medium.com/@aemtn/information-doesnt-want-to-be-free-people-do-b15a249a4f0
Paulo Coehlo, strictly lit, is another author into open. http://www.openculture.com/2011/09/how_paulo_coelho_started_pirating_his_own_books.html
http://gigaom.com/2010/04/20/open-vs-closed-in-the-ongoing-battle-over-control-how-much-is-too-much/
Letās see: cats for independence; buttons (besides there being so many of them to click) for a combination of persistence and tolerance for/fascination with indeterminate outcomes (taking roads when you have no idea where they will take you), and giving a damn (not enough for you to get the info, you want others to have at it too.
Works for me. Having the cats push the buttons might be too muchā¦ especially if you give a damn
So we could apply the ādepends on them finding itā measure here: thanks for highlighting this discussion.
We have context (the course) plus your role (making the connections). Also if I make note @AStrachan and @aristarik it brings them into play (this infrastructure).
So the thing that also interests me is āequal accessā so there is the same opportunity to access, but it is not the same experience @akoutropoulos or the barrier of language @MahaBali. And we want the next person to make it better.
But an equality of opportunity has it āprogrammed outā and recognise who is adversely affected. The available translation, the bilingual road sign (being in Cornwall/ Kernow this week), but also what is reasonable. Or what we expect to redistribute.
There is also the ātreasure huntā of following the connections, but that does not necessarily make it a case for connectivism 
That was the one I went to but thought there was a specific comment about derivative work and permission.
Interesting discussion. So often we forget that āopennessā has a price. The contributor may feel that they have been compensated enough by earning a good salary so they can freely share their materials and content or they may feel it is a philosophical perspective or value that they want to support - to share with others. But the cost of keeping materials or media or data or whatever freely available requires a place on the Internet (and/or a physical space) and requires some way for people to respond to it - the costs cited by open projects such as MITās OpenCourseWare are prohibitive for many smaller institutions or groups.
I think youād brought forward a really interesting point - we can all be inspired by the generosity of others. But I wonder how many have to share before weāre motivated to participate? And are there other barriers to participation in sharing? I know that technological complexities (contributing in different ways to different platforms) can make sharing seem like too much time and effort. Also, choosing where to share (can we find a way to share to every node in the āopenā world?)
Itās an interesting point! Our school has some OCW, but it is not really supported (I would call it life support at this point) - itās up and running, but not added to, and minimally maintained. There needs to be buy in at the top levels to really nurture the growth of such initiatives
I agree that equality of access certainly still means different experiences, and even, one might say, an inequality of access. Just because something is āopenā to anyone to view/read/hear doesnāt mean they CAN actually do so (language, tech, other barriers). Making something āavailableā for free on the web doesnāt actually, in some cases, really mean making it available to as many people as one might think.
But Iām not quite sure what you mean by saying equality of opportunity has it āprogrammed out.ā Can you explain?
Good questions. I wonder myself if it might be the case that at some point there develops a culture of sharing, such that itās a sort of norm, at least in certain professions/activities? Then that would motivate others, if itās just the sort of thing one does. For example, in higher ed, asking someone else for their syllabus or a copy of an essay assignment is common, and itās normal to say yes and give that to them without any strings attached (like: you must cite me if you use any of the ideas from this). If sharing teaching materials more widely and openly were more of a norm like this, it would clearly be more common. How might we get there? Hopefully by showing people the value of having access to the work of others, and then getting them to see thereby why they should contribute too?
As to other barriers to participating in sharingā¦I only know the education context fairly well, and one barrier that has recently come up at my Uni is that faculty are afraid if they make their teaching/learning content openly available, the university (or others) will use it in for-profit education ventures (like MOOCs, were they ever to make a profit; or online courses). Some faculty are reluctant to share therefore, because they donāt want someone else to be making money off their work. Of course, thereās the option of CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-SA that should help with such concerns.
Choosing where to share: that one Iām really unsure about. There are numerous OER repositories for education, and some people just put their stuff on their websites and it can be found by search engines. I recently heard for someone posting teaching materials on Academia.edu But so far I donāt think thereās really a single, central place to share OER (much less any other open content!).
Quite an interesting discussion. I think that there are so many variables to open participation. Some times itās where you are in life. Earlier in my career I used to spend A LOT of time in technology forums. I gathered up so many total forum posts that I was āreveredā by some. Some posts were social, some were help-posts (helping other users), and some were exploratory (debates, and the types of discourse we are having here). Then, I changed jobs, got married, had other responsibilities, and I dropped out of those forums. Then, my interests changed, so when I had more time, I had different interests, so those communities (which interesting) didnāt appeal as much any more for spending my time there.
I think that open projects are sort of similar in that peopleās interests ebb and flow, so you will get turnover. In addition, I think all communities will have more lurkers than people who actively contribute to the community. In some contexts such āleechingā is detrimental (projects canāt move forward because there arenāt enough contribs) and in other cases they donāt negatively impact such projects.