@Scott - I think that "moral rights" (which are non-assignable and
non-waivable) cover the questionable use of any material under any
license. If some disreputable technology organisation that avoids UK taxes
decided to use one of my instagram snaps to illustrate a marketing
campaign for a device built by illegal child labour using conflict rare
earth materials (to give an impossibly evil example) , I have the legal
right to say "no - you can't do that, associating with you damages my
moral standing".
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:06:50 -0000, Scott Wilson
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree; we should be more open about the "closed" option :)
>
> Some of the reasons why academics are drawn to NC in particular is that
> they are uncomfortable with the way their material might be used.
> (Another good example is where CC-licensed Flickr images are used as
> free stock photos for organisations that the creator thinks are a bit
> dodgy.) These are the kind of situations where there is often a call for
> end-use restrictions that are, at best, highly questionable in the
> context of open licensing.
>
> In these cases, I think its better to just support a decision not to
> offer materials under any CC-style license at all; they can still be
> "free" (as in beer) to access but restricted in usage (i.e. royalty-free
> with a EULA).
>
> S
>
> On 5 Nov 2012, at 12:31, Amber THOMAS wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> Someone has to say it, it may as well be me.
>
> I'm not talking about the MOOCs context particularly, but CC licensed
> educational content, aka OER. So I'm talking here about the difference
> between CC's licences that count as gratis and those that count as
> libre. I'm glad that this is becoming an explicit debate as I've seen it
> surfacing and it's helpful to draw out these assumptions.
>
> I would like to remind everyone that there is an argument that gratis is
> still a good thing.
> And in my personal view, gratis (i.e basically free and copyable), is
> often good enough.
> I know that's terribly unfashionable :-D
>
> Why? Well ... I think that for content providers libre is a bigger ask
> than gratis: it means giving more rights to users.
> I think giving people access is valuable in its own right. And as a
> smaller requirement on content providers, it's more likely to happen. So
> I look at the big picture and what I think is this: I'd rather see 50%
> of educational materials made available gratis than 10% made available
> libre whilst other content providers are scared off by "OER librans"
> criticising their choice of CC licence. I know that the NC and ND take
> away the ability of users to do certain things. But it's a trade off I
> accept.
>
> I don't accept that openness is a black and white issue.
>
> It would be so healthy if the librans could respect the gratins
> (even if that makes it sound like a truce between astrology and potatoes
> :-) )
>
>
> Amber
>
>
>
> OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
> http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
>
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]
> http://scottbw.wordpress.com
> @scottbw
>
--
David Kernohan
UKOER Programme Manager
eLearning Innovation Team
JISC
e:[log in to unmask]
p:3rd Floor, Beacon House, Bristol BS8 1QU
s:david.kernohan
t: dkernohan, ukoer
m: 07917599296
|