 |
 |
Academic-only licensing was used by NLN. It was region-specific, so publishers used a dual license (free to UK FE, commercial to rest-of-world) which made it a hassle to host anything without sticking up a load of barriers (usually IP range restrictions, depending on the terms of the content creator). It pretty much crippled one BECTA project I was involved in as it faced a huge stack of access management requirements that weren't budgeted for. Of course, most of the resources were of limited commercial value anyway, and many of the original content creators either ceased trading, were bought out, or left the market to focus on other things. Leaving a big mess as no-one could re-license under different terms, or grant permission for special cases. If we'd just used permissive licensing no-one would have lost out or been exploited, and we'd have saved quite a lot of money and time wasted trying to untangle it. S On 26 Sep 2012, at 10:10, Pat Lockley wrote: > well subset it down to an "academic" licence then, which is just for > Unis, Colleges and schools. > > I'd just make it open and you can do what you like with it, but given > most sites force CC check boxes as the only options - no free text - > then it's all a bit moot. > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Amber THOMAS <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Ha! Great minds, Julian, our messages crossed in the ether. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Tenney >> Sent: 26 September 2012 09:55 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: SPARC "how open is it" >> >> Would training count as education? >> >> It's a can of worms. I think you're either open (do what the heck you like, and if you make a million, good luck to you) or you're not. >> >> -----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.