i still find it very curious that creative commons haven't made an
"educational" version of NC
it would seem that'd solve a tonne of problems
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Julian Tenney
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I dispute CC-NC near the top of the openness scale, because it isn’t clear
> what ‘non-commercial’ actually means. Frustrating recent experience trying
> to pass on some CC-NC stuff, discussions with the provider, and a failure to
> reach any sort of clarity back this up.
>
>
>
> From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Scott Wilson
> Sent: 26 September 2012 09:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SPARC "how open is it"
>
>
>
> OSS Watch in partnership with Pia Waugh developed an "Openness Rating" for
> software projects including sets of questions feeding into broad dimensions
> (legal, standards, knowledge, governance, market). Something similar for OER
> materials and collections may be useful; I think the dimensions suggested
> for OA are perhaps a bit too focussed on just the licensing aspects.
>
>
>
> On 26 Sep 2012, at 09:23, Amber THOMAS wrote:
>
>
>
> Hallo
>
>
>
> Our friends in Open Access world are prising open the can of worms around
> the dimensions of openness.
>
> I wonder if any of this terminology carries over to our OER space –
> certainly reuse rights, copyrights and machine readability.
>
>
>
> Though we don’t have the journals issue I think we have remix platforms that
> are going to become a battle line on our questions of reuse and attribution
> ... think pinterest XXL. And of course, MOOCs and other high profile online
> courses.
>
>
>
> I think research papers have norms of use well understood within academic
> circles. But treating papers as open content might surface some very
> challenging issues of what is acceptable use of an article. This isn’t just
> about Creative Commons, it’s about the promise of academic work previously
> locked in journals finally meeting the public. It could get interesting!
>
>
>
>
>
> Amber
>
>
>
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Amber THOMAS
> Sent: 26 September 2012 09:16
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: SPARC "how open is it"
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I may have missed discussion on this list around this draft SPARC document
> on “OA: how open is it?”
>
> http://www.arl.org/sparc/media/HowOpenIsIt.shtml
>
>
>
> They are seeking feedback by 8th October.
>
>
>
> It suggests a spectrum of openness along these dimensions:
>
> Reader Rights
>
> Reuse Rights
>
> Copyrights
>
> Author Posting Rights
>
> Automatic Posting
>
> Machine Readability
>
>
>
>
>
> Looks useful to me: good to have some ways of describing these dimensions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Amber
>
>
>
>
>
> Amber Thomas
>
> Programme Manager: digital infrastructure, learning materials, IPR
>
> Innovation Group
>
> Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
> twitter: @ambrouk
>
> mobile: cell+44 (0) 7920 534 933
>
> website: www.jisc.ac.uk
>
> team blog: http://infteam.jiscinvolve.org/wp/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
>
> http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> http://scottbw.wordpress.com
>
> @scottbw
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and
> may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in
> error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not
> use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any
> attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do
> not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
> may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system:
> you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
> University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
|