<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Open Access to Murdoch Uni innovation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/informationfutures/2008/03/creative-commons-licence-for-murdoch-uni-innovation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/informationfutures/2008/03/creative-commons-licence-for-murdoch-uni-innovation/</link>
	<description>A blog about information management, architecture and strategy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:43:14 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Margaret L Ruwoldt</title>
		<link>http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/informationfutures/2008/03/creative-commons-licence-for-murdoch-uni-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-479</link>
		<dc:creator>Margaret L Ruwoldt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:27:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/informationfutures/2008/03/creative-commons-licence-for-murdoch-uni-innovation/#comment-479</guid>
		<description>Simon, thanks for your comment -- it&#039;s an important point to make, I think. 

We face a similar tension in conversations about making course materials freely available. While some want us to adopt an approach similar to the MIT Open Course Ware initiative, we need to balance that public-spiritedness with the reality that the University generates income from licensing some of its courseware to other institutions and organisations. Can we find a sustainable business model that would allow us to do both?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Simon, thanks for your comment &#8212; it&#8217;s an important point to make, I think. </p>
<p>We face a similar tension in conversations about making course materials freely available. While some want us to adopt an approach similar to the MIT Open Course Ware initiative, we need to balance that public-spiritedness with the reality that the University generates income from licensing some of its courseware to other institutions and organisations. Can we find a sustainable business model that would allow us to do both?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon Kerr</title>
		<link>http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/informationfutures/2008/03/creative-commons-licence-for-murdoch-uni-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-477</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Kerr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:01:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/informationfutures/2008/03/creative-commons-licence-for-murdoch-uni-innovation/#comment-477</guid>
		<description>In principle the idea of an open commons for social good knowledge can be an excellent way to contribute to the wellbeing of communities, a role that is (or ought to be) important to Universities. However, this route may not always work, particularly where the technology requires investment by someone to get it ready for public use. Clinical trials, and even establishing lines of distribution and advertising (promoting  a new great idea) all cost money and if this cost is substantial, and not able to be taken on by state funding or NGOs, for example, then the great idea might in fact never benefit the people it was designed to reach. 

All I am suggesting is that commercialisation of an idea/technology is sometimes the only way to ensure people benefit from new discoveries. I am not commenting on Murdoch&#039;s &#039;elegant innovation&#039;, for they are no doubt confident that their ideas can be taken up without significant further investment. I applaud this, for sure, but wanted to simply make the point that commercialising a new product may in some cases be the only way to get it to people who need it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In principle the idea of an open commons for social good knowledge can be an excellent way to contribute to the wellbeing of communities, a role that is (or ought to be) important to Universities. However, this route may not always work, particularly where the technology requires investment by someone to get it ready for public use. Clinical trials, and even establishing lines of distribution and advertising (promoting  a new great idea) all cost money and if this cost is substantial, and not able to be taken on by state funding or NGOs, for example, then the great idea might in fact never benefit the people it was designed to reach. </p>
<p>All I am suggesting is that commercialisation of an idea/technology is sometimes the only way to ensure people benefit from new discoveries. I am not commenting on Murdoch&#8217;s &#8216;elegant innovation&#8217;, for they are no doubt confident that their ideas can be taken up without significant further investment. I applaud this, for sure, but wanted to simply make the point that commercialising a new product may in some cases be the only way to get it to people who need it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
