Print

Print
Hiya all,

On 09/06/2013 3:48 PM, rory wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
With all due respect to Stephen, I would argue that if academics want the grant, then they can adjust their "principles" .

Wow, I've heard that a lot in my career. I didn't expect it from Rory. Is this the sort of attitude we're trying to promote when we adevocate for 'free' and 'open'?

If this were your money I'd say fine, but this is Gates Foundation money, which leads me to wonder whether Gates is buying a dose of commercial-friendly academics with their largess. I have yet to adjust my principles just for the sake of getting Gates grant money, and that's not about to start.

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
We should insist on the most open licence for this call: CC-BY or CC-BY-SA Academics who have a problem with that can NOT apply.

CC-BY are NOT the "most open" licenses, they are merely the most commerce-friendly. Licenses that allow prople to block access and charge money for access to materials are less open, not more open.

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
I understand that and that is their decision. I think we can live with that but  the content's value is diminished whe there are all kinds of different restrictions.

As I commented to Cable, it is the introduction of the commercial element bring in all kinds of limitations and liabilities. It is simply not true that licenses enabling commercial use are less restrictive.

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
IRRODL has insisted on a CC-BY licence for many years and we have not yet come across any academic refusing to contribute because of the licence.

That's a non-sequiter. The academics that would be bothered by the license simply don't contribute. Others put up with the license but publish anyways to advance their careers. It's just like when academic published in commercial journals.

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
So, from that perspective, I have NO worries that this will limit researchers. Even Stephen has published under CC-BY-SA. See the COL edited book - his chapter https://oerknowledgecloud.org/?q=content/role-open-educational-resources-personal-learning
So, I am sure that even Stephen can adjust his "principles" from time to time. And I thank him for his flexibility in contributing his excellent chapter to the COL OER book.


As Rory knows full well, my article was not originally intended for the book where it ended up, and it is there because I was trying to be accomodating to a request. I think throwing my reasonableness back in my face during a discussion isn't very honorable.

This isn't about me being inflexible. This is about whether demanding that authors MUST allow commercial publication of their work is appropriate.

Nor even was it about me trying to tell AU what it should do with its project. My original objection was against Creative Commons lobbying in favour of one of its licenses, at the expense of another of its licenses. I kept details of this specific project out of my complaints, because my objection wasn`t about a specific project.

On 09/06/2013 4:23 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

[[[[Summary: Instead of, or in addition to, trying to make the CORRECT decision on behalf of the many, how can we empower the many to make informed decisions THEMSELVES?]]]]

As Cable can attest, this is exactly the position I was advocating. My objection isn't to people using CC-by -- they can do that if they want -- my objection was against the idea of 'free' and 'open' being defined as CC-by only, when in fact CC-NC is a perfectly good way to publish openly, and should be recognized as open.

And again, my objection wasn't leveled against this specific project or against IRRODL, it was against the Director of Creative Commons lobbying in favour of one CC license at the expense of another.

I can understand the project wanting papers to be published in IRRODL, which while a little self-serving on the part of the project organizers (I would have allowed people to publishg wherever they want) is nonetheless not particularly objectionable, and I would see how this results in a requirement to publish under CC-by, because that's what the journal does. But if the stuff isn't even going to be published under IRRODL, what's the purpose of demanding publication under one specific type of license? It was this intervention, which served no good purpose, which provoked my response.

-- Stephen







[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

All the best.
Rory

Rory McGreal
UNESCO/COL Chair in OER
Athabasca University
On 2013-06-09 11:41 AM, Cable Green wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Hi All:

I had a good hour+ talk with Stephen Downes this morning re: my CC BY recommendation below. I want to thank Stephen for his time for continuing to challenge assumptions in OER and other open spaces.

Stephen pointed out many academic researchers (Stephen included) may not apply for one of these MOOC research grants if CC BY is required, but that researchers might apply if other CC licenses were allowed.  For example, Stephen chooses to publish under BY NC. He further argued that not allowing for the full suite of CC license choices may limit which researchers do the MOOC research, which may in turn limit which voices come forth and contribute to the analysis of MOOCs. (Stephen - if I'm missing your key points, please correct me...)

Creative Commons has six open copyright licenses precisely because different communities and individuals have different open licensing needs in different contexts.

Given this particular context, this grant might want to engage a mix of potential MOOC researchers and get their feedback on which open licenses they would prefer to publish under... and then provide CC license choices that meet the goals and needs of both the grant and the researchers.

Respectfully submitted,

Cable


Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.    - Hubert H. Humphrey

==================

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Cable Green <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Rory and George:

Might it be possible to:
  1. Add the following to the web site footer?
  2. Require CC BY licenses (in the grant requirements) on all MOOC research works resulting from these sub-grants?

Thank you for considering,

Cable


Cable Green, PhD
Director of Global Learning
Creative Commons
@cgreen
http://creativecommons.org/education
reuse, revise, remix & redistribute

 

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:45 PM, rory <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Athabasca University is leading the call for Research on MOOCs with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation.

For information about this opportunity, visit

http://www.moocresearch.com/research-initiative/about

Rory

Rory McGreal
UNESCO/COL Chair in OER
Athabasca University





--


Cable Green, PhD
Director of Global Learning
Creative Commons
@cgreen
http://creativecommons.org/education
reuse, revise, remix & redistribute



--
Stephen Downes
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
[log in to unmask] ~ http://www.downes.ca
Free Learning