Note also that NC has no equivalent in open source; a license that had an NC-type clause would not be considered an open license, but a closed one.
Fun example, when Crockford added "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." to his MIT License for JSMin, it stopped being free software, and was banned from Google Code...
"Also about once a year, I get a letter from a lawyer, every year a different lawyer, at a company--I don't want to embarrass the company by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials: IBM--saying that they want to use something I wrote," he said. "They want to use something that I wrote in something that they wrote, and they were pretty sure they weren't going to use it for evil, but they couldn't say for sure about their customers. So could I give them a special license for that? Of course. So I wrote back... 'I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil.'"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10422338-264.html
Personally on any openness rating for OER I'd give NC a significant downward rating against a couple of dimensions.
On 26 Sep 2012, at 10:01, Amber THOMAS wrote:
> Ah, there is another can of worms.
>
> I think that's because education is not a robust legal category. Does it mean the copyright owner or the user? The user in their study time or their personal time? or is it staff? In their work time or their personal time? Education tends to mean not-for-profit but it that true? Is a paid course different from a free one? What about subsidised courses that are free to the learner but paid by the state? Is education learning towards a qualification? How big does the qualification has to be? Can it be a badge? And educational institutions aren't the only providers of education, training and learning. Any big company has a staff development team, do they qualify as education? And who polices/enforces Creative Commons licences anyway, when the CC community doesn't have the big legal guns that publishers and heavyweight copyright owners have?
>
> Help, the worms are eating my brain!
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pat Lockley
> Sent: 26 September 2012 09:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SPARC "how open is it"
>
> 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.
|