I can only imagine the inquisitive looks that the managers at California Department of Education or MIT must have got from their leadership when they proposed the notion of Open Source Textbook or Open Courseware. As Don Tapscott points out this throws the whole notion of property rights into reverse order. Traditionally you could not access a text book unless you paid for it or take a course at MIT unless you were accepted and paid tuition – the model of exclusion from use or distribution of creative work without payment.

While Don Tapscott does a good job at explaining why people would colloborate on other open source projects for allturistic or ego-boosting reasons and how an organization can capture value from that interaction I still struggle a bit to see where MIT would gain value by offering their courses for free. It’s not that I don’t think people will come to MIT anymore – people will always want the prestige of an MIT diploma and often feel they learn more from an interactive class environment. The only answer I can get is that MIT sees value in progess. If someone is able to make a break through in a new math proof or understanding of chemical interaction after applying their own knowledge with the Open Courseware then the entire field benefits. That said – they will still not monetize that value as they may have in the past.

I guess it’s the traditional capitalist in me that struggles with certain applications of Open Source. I get the Global Plant Floor, the New Alexandrian industry-university partnership for innovative development and research but these all end in a product from which an organization can capture value – where does MIT capture the value of a non-student taking their courses for free – with no interaction with the institution itself? Are they really just being altruistic and thinking of the greater good or am I missing something here?

Advertisement