Seite - 90 - in Radical Solutions and Open Science - An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education

6 OnlineTechnology inKnowledgeTransfer 95 possibility of real commodification before the stamp is obtained (Mancini, 2019). Amore agile, affordable, and equally robustmechanism is required in the face of possibleplagiarismormisappropriation. Butnoteverythingmustberegisteredbycopyrightorpatent.Theopenmovement, mentioned earlier, has been extending its influence since 1975: software, content, education, access, etc. (Nyberg,1975;D’Antoni, 2009;Downes,2007;McAndrew, 2010).CoderegisteredasOpenSource,as inGitHub,GitLab,orSourceForgeware- houses (Coelho&Valente,2017),or in theSoftwareHeritageproject (DiCosmo& Zacchiroli,2017),providesimmediaterecognitionofauthorship,underthepremises of fair and balanced use. The same is true of content andCreativeCommons, pre- prints of scientific publications, or open education (Wong, 2017). The latter also cements itsactivityintechnologytogetherwithotherpillars(9inall)suchasaccess, researchresults, researchdata,content,educationalpolicies,use licenses,accredita- tion, and inter-operability (Burgos, 2017). Society, in the shape of someusers, has decidedthattherearealternativemeansofregistration,warehousing,productuseand recognition,anddevelopmentandserviceswhichdifferfromtheofficiallystipulated ones; this isanagreementbetweenparties,withfulloperationaleffectiveness,which enables andmore, stimulates, according to context, goal, and target audience, the exchangeof information,knowledge, and resourcesamongendusers,whether they individualor institutional. It is true that the openmovement, on all levels, presents great grey areas. The definitionsofopen,unrestricted, free-of-charge,anduniversal tend tobecommonly confused.Oftentimes, throughamereout-of-context translationof theEnglishword “free”which canmean either “at no cost” or “unrestricted”, or both, themultiple meanings are sometimes harmful to the appropriate use of the listed resource. The mainobjectionliesintheapproachofanover-inclinedsectoradvocatingfortheunre- stricted, free-of-charge, and unregistered use and enjoyment of external resources, withoutanytypeofcompensationorfinancingfromtheuser (Schimmer,Geschuhn, &Vogler, 2015).Content generation is the clearest example but this objection can be applied to any of the other nine pillarsmentioned in the preceding paragraph. If a university official generates a course during their workday, the resourcemust becost-free (Jahn&Tullney, 2016).Theofficial is alreadypaid for this effort from public funds and should not overburden the budget for private interest or use. If theuniversity,asan institution,wishes tomanageadditional services (accreditation, tutoring, extra activities, etc.) orwishes to commercialise the course under certain parameters, there is certainly a viable and sustainable framework of commodifica- tion,butaninstitutionalone,notfor theofficialpersonally.Ifanindividualgenerates a course in their free time, they have the right to offer it at no cost or for a fee, and theyown their content and themeansof distribution.Lastly, if an employeeof a private institution (e.g. a university, research facility, or foundation) generates a courseduring theirwork time the institutionwilldecide thecommodificationof the product, andwhatever compensation it considers for the employee. Inotherwords, if aproduct derives frompublic funding it cannotbedoublyappraised. If it derives fromprivate funds, theownerof those fundsdecidesonaccessandcosts.However, awidesectorof theopenmovementholds thateverythingmustbeopenineducation