I have always enjoyed unpacking this quote. What started as a debate between writer, Stewart Brand, and the lovable genius, Steve Wosniak.
"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so
valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your
life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost
of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have
these two fighting against each other."
I almost always prefer to take it out of its origins in the hackers' realm and consider the different aspects:
- worth versus cost
- the tensions of 'free' - as Wosniak state, "Information should be free, but your time should not be"
- power of information e.g., threshold concepts, transformational thinking, new portals (however you want to label it).
As much as I understand and believe in the social justice impetus behind open education as a movement, more and more I am considering how the 'business model' will take shape? For it to blanket and be viable, open education will more than likely have to devise a sustainable model where creators are compensated and there is better tracking of attribution. How to balance The Commons, The State, and the The Corporation? And if not balance, at least have a peaceful co-existence.
Since my intro to Creative Commons in 2002, as my first entryway in to formalizing how I wanted to see and share info - in direct contrast to the lockdown nature of copyright, there have been several iterations of "what open means to me". At this point in time, OPEN means wrestling with competing concepts and interests to find a scalable | sustainable way forward.
