User talk:Margaret

Activity 1.1 Feedback

Dear Margaret,
Here is some feedback with regard to Activit 1:
When you write "OER has been recognized as an international community of learning where anyone wishing to use them for learning purposes has access which is unlimited from any part of the world." Just to be sure: OER are resources which are publicly shared. Those who share, contribute, reuse, etc. form a community process wise but content wise it is rather a myriad of small communities concerned with a given content who will interact.
In the retain, rather than saying "become yours" I would say "becomes your copy".
In the redistribute, it is an ability as you say but it is also a mindset, i.e. be willing to redistribute.
It would be a good idea to add the resources you have worked with to come up with your own understanding of the five R. You can just add them at the bottom :)

Re: Activity 1.1 Feedback -- Margaret (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2022 (CEST)

Dear Brabara, i have reviewed this work, Please check it out

Activity 1.2 Feedback

You mention copyright law, which is fully correct but remember also the principle of copyleft behind the CC licences project. I guess there is a mismatch between the presentation of licences and the introduction, "discussed here below from the least permissive": CC 0 is indeed the most permissive but then comes the CC BY and the following ones you have mentioned.
As in the previous feedback: please add references!

Re: Activity 1.2 Feedback -- Margaret (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2022 (CEST)

i have also reviewed the activity, kindly check it out

Activity 1.3 Feedback

Your activity is very interesting because you revisit the UNHCR convention from the perspective of OER (content and licence). Since this is a convention, i.e. a legal document, I do not know to what extent CC licences are actually applicable. On their website, there is not any mention with regard to CC licences. I will ask because this is really a challenging question, i.e. to what extent can CC licences be applied to legal documents and international conventions.
Just a small comment: be careful to be very precise. When you write "Creative common on the other hand is concerned with how individuals or institutions can be licensed under the copyright law to use OERs/creative works." It is the resources produced by individuals or institutions that can be licenced.
Great that for this activity, you have added references :)

Welcome to EduTech Wiki!

We hope that you will contribute, in whichever way you like.

You will probably want to consult the help pages and have a look at the Editing rules.

We use strong anti-spamming measures. After each edit you may have to fill in a captcha that will test whether you are real human or a script.

Unfortunately, answering the captcha is not possible from the Visual Editor and you will get an error message when you try to save a page. New contributors still can use the visual editor, but must switch to the source editor before saving, using the [[ ]] switch button (top right). Then click save page (bottom of the page)

Remember: Switch to Edit source when saving doesn't work ! (button top right).

As soon you are known as a friendly contributor you will be moved to an "author group" that doesn't need to fill in captcha's for each edit. If I don't "see" you, just ask with a post on my discussion page.

Again, welcome!

PS: This is an automatically generated message. Feel free to remove this text from your page. kalli (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2022 (CET)

Re: Activity 1.3 Feedback -- Margaret (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2022 (CEST)

True, kindly check to what extent CC licenses can be applied to international convections and other legal instruments. This will also be interesting for me to know. I have rectified the the error on 'individual licences' rather than licenses for materials

Thanks for the feedback.