 |
 |
As an aside for fans of the definition of non-commercial licensing, the last set of FL accounts show the number of shares is now at 400,000. A friend who gets university finances tells me this is a number typically used so an amount of the shares can be sold to investors, while maintaining a majority share holding yourself. So as a vehicle (the company type FL chose is suited to this purpose) seems to becoming more commercial. So Universities, as charities, will be moving content through a commercial entity, which has also been partially funded by other charities, which have commercial elements. On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Andy Beggan <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Hi > > > > As our OER licence has always been BY-NC-SA, this wasn’t an issue for us. > > > > Andy > > > > *From:* Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On > Behalf Of *Suzanne Hardy > *Sent:* 08 January 2014 12:31 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: OERs and MOOCS > > > > Perhaps another FL partner might like to comment - we are still right at > the beginning here at Newcastle..... > > > > > > > > Suzanne > > -- > > Suzanne Hardy > Senior Project Officer > Quality in Learning and Teaching (QuILT) > Student and Academic Services > Ground Floor, North Wing > King George VI Building > Newcastle University > Newcastle upon Tyne > NE1 7RU > > Tel: 0191 208 3967 > http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt > > email: [log in to unmask] > mobile: 07790 905657 > skype: glitt3rgirl > https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/suzannehardy/ > > OER14: building communities of open practice > 28 & 29 April 2014, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK > www.oer14.org > > > > > > > > > > On 8 Jan 2014, at 12:27, Pat Lockley <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > There is an inference that the FL / partner contract has some form of > copyright assignment / agreement, but it is hard to tell without seeing it. > > > > Partner institutions retain copyright. Usual licence to FL granted by > University for making materials available on platform and promoting course. > And HEIs can therefore license materials as they like (as I understand it). > > > > > > Seems to contradict the terms though? If you retain copyright then the > prescription of a NC license is in theory outside of their power? > > A quick google makes me wonder if it is a relic of the Udacity copy and > paste. > > > > Will go find a copyright person..... > > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Suzanne Hardy < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > There is nothing you wouldn't expect in the FL contract - I bet if we sat > down the contracts would be very similar across all the major platform > providers. > > > > See a couple of other comments below. > > > > > > > > -- > > Suzanne Hardy > Senior Project Officer > Quality in Learning and Teaching (QuILT) > Student and Academic Services > Ground Floor, North Wing > King George VI Building > Newcastle University > Newcastle upon Tyne > NE1 7RU > > Tel: 0191 208 3967 > http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt > > email: [log in to unmask] > mobile: 07790 905657 > skype: glitt3rgirl > https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/suzannehardy/ > > OER14: building communities of open practice > 28 & 29 April 2014, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK > www.oer14.org > > > > > > > > > > On 8 Jan 2014, at 11:58, Pat Lockley <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > Those T and C are for users of the site, and not directly for the > universities, so it is hard to read into these what shape and form the > agreement between FL and their partners is. > > > > There is an inference that the FL / partner contract has some form of > copyright assignment / agreement, but it is hard to tell without seeing it. > > > > Partner institutions retain copyright. Usual licence to FL granted by > University for making materials available on platform and promoting course. > And HEIs can therefore license materials as they like (as I understand it). > > > > > > For reference, a Coursera course development agreement makes no statement > what so ever on what you do with your content, other than it should stay on > Coursera for 90 days after the course has ran. > > > > Much the same. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Cable Green <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Re: FutureLearn terms. > > > > *http://about.futurelearn.com/terms/ > <http://about.futurelearn.com/terms/>6.3 Certain Partner Institutions > may, at their own discretion, make available certain Online Content and > Courses under a Creative Commons licence (non-Commercial). Should Partner > Institutions choose to do this, it will be clearly identified on the > appropriate Online Content and Courses page of the Website and we > acknowledge that the Creative Commons licence will override certain of > these terms and conditions as appropriate. A full copy of the relevant > Creative Commons licence will be available from a link at that point.* > > It would be preferable if FutureLearn would remove the "NC" requirement. > In other words, content contributors should be able to choose *any* CC > license they elect to add to their course. They, the Copyright holders, the > Universities, the Faculty, should not have their choices limited to only > the NC licenses. > > Thoughts? > > > Cable > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Suzanne Hardy < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > And also to reiterate, in my conversations so far, FutureLearn are in fact > very keen to work with more courses using open licenses. > > > > Any resistance to using open licensing has not come from the F/L team, but > from individual institutions. > > > > > > -- > > Suzanne Hardy > Senior Project Officer > Quality in Learning and Teaching (QuILT) > Student and Academic Services > Ground Floor, North Wing > King George VI Building > Newcastle University > Newcastle upon Tyne > NE1 7RU > > Tel: 0191 208 3967 > http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt > > email: [log in to unmask] > mobile: 07790 905657 > skype: glitt3rgirl > https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/suzannehardy/ > > OER14: building communities of open practice > 28 & 29 April 2014, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK > www.oer14.org > > > > > > > > > > On 6 Jan 2014, at 20:43, Ebba Ossiannilsson <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > Just to agree with Suzanne > But sure MOOCs needs more CC material > By the way just started teh course, so it will be of interest to follow > Best Ebba Ossiannilsson, Lund University, Sweden > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *Från:* Open Educational Resources [[log in to unmask]] för > Suzanne Hardy [[log in to unmask]] > *Skickat:* den 6 januari 2014 16:32 > *Till:* [log in to unmask] > *Ämne:* Re: OERs and MOOCS > > My interactions so far with FutureLearn regarding OER have all been > positive. > > > > It is worth remembering that individual partners decide on whether or not > to make their courses/resources OER, rather than a FutureLearn top down > requirement to CC license everything. > > > > > > -- > > Suzanne Hardy > Senior Project Officer > Quality in Learning and Teaching (QuILT) > Student and Academic Services > Ground Floor, North Wing > King George VI Building > Newcastle University > Newcastle upon Tyne > NE1 7RU > > Tel: 0191 208 3967 > http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt > > email: [log in to unmask] > mobile: 07790 905657 > skype: glitt3rgirl > https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/suzannehardy/ > > OER14: building communities of open practice > 28 & 29 April 2014, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK > www.oer14.org > > > > > > > > > > On 6 Jan 2014, at 15:22, David Kernohan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > Hello Jackie – and a very happy new year to you. I’m really glad that > you’ll still be hanging around the “open education” corner of the internet > and look forward to hearing your take on the events of the next year! > > > > I’m speaking on a panel with Simon Nelson of FutureLearn at the end of the > month. I’ll ask him about OER and F/L MOOCs then. I might even ask him > about assessment design too… ;-) > > > > David > > > > - > > David Kernohan > > Jisc > > > > *From:* Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> > ]*On Behalf Of *Jacqueline Carter > *Sent:* 06 January 2014 15:19 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: OERs and MOOCS > > > > Hello All, > > > > For those of you who have not seen the Jorum end of year blog post ( > http://www.jorum.ac.uk/blog/post/79/it-s-a-goodbye-from-me-and-a-goodbye-from-her-a-farewell-from-sarah-currier-and-jackie-carter) > - you'll maybe not know that I am no longer Jorum Director. I am still > however interested in all things open. > > > > David Kernohan and I mused over OER and MOOCs last year (in another Jorum > blog post), this followed the well-atended Libraries and Moocs day at the > British Library at which I spoke to FutureLearn's Technical Director (sorry > - can't recall his name). It would be good to get him to respond to this > list - can anyone forward him the thread? I understood that FutureLearn > were supportive of both reuse and release (where permissions allowed) of > OER - albeit that they did not expect to release all content under CC. We > did talk about how the MOOC providers could work alongside the OER > platforms to help the virtuous flow of content - and we (Jorum) planned to > pick this up in 2014. I'll leave that to my successor - Dr Susanne Boyle > (cc-ed). > > > > Happy New Year everyone. > > > > Jackie > > > > > > > > Dr Jackie Carter > UK Data Service: Director for Communications and Impact > Mimas Senior Manager: Learning and Teaching and Social Science Data > > University of Manchester Q-Step Centre Co-director > ________________________________________ > +44(0) 161 2756725 > +44(0) 774 7460963 > E: [log in to unmask] > T: @JackieCarter > _________________________________________ > Mimas > University of Manchester > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Open Educational Resources [[log in to unmask]] on behalf > of Lorna M Campbell [[log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* 06 January 2014 14:32 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: OERs and MOOCS > > Hi Steve, PAt, > > > > Thanks, interesting to hear your experiences on using third party > materials in MOOCs. I think this is the kind of info that a lot of people > would find useful and would hopefully encourage them to consider using CC > licensed material if they are planning on running MOOCs. > > > > Cheers > > Lorna > > > > On 6 Jan 2014, at 14:02, Pat Lockley wrote: > > > > We also asked everyone we used - only the National Portrait Gallery said > no (which I think was the right choice given their take on NC) - but we > also told everyone we linked to what we had done and asked for how they > wanted to be attributed. > > > > We were concerned that a sudden MOOC user spike on a server might break > it, or lead to confused google analytics reports. > > > > Be interesting to see if the Delft stuff ties into > http://ocw.tudelft.nl/ocw/courses/ as in Unis with existing OER schemes > find MOOCs easier. > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Steven Stapleton < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > For the Nottingham course we released our own content under CC and also > used a lot of third party CC resources. As Lorna highlights below, that’s > ok to do in line with the terms – and FutureLearn have been very supportive > of our desire to do this. > > > > Wherever we used third party non-commercial CC resources – we also > contacted the rights holder to make sure they were happy with us using > their NC material in a MOOC. There were a range of opinions on the need to > do this on a thread on this list a while back. Personally, I would be happy > for anyone to use our own NC CC content in an online course without asking > us - providing it wasn’t charging for access to the content. But to make > sure we weren’t stepping over any lines with what owners of NC content > wanted – we chose to ask them. Interestingly, not one person we contacted > about using their NC resources had a problem with it – although a couple > didn’t respond at all. There were also a couple of occasions where we had > to tighten up on the attribution we provided after authors got back to us > highlighting errors or context issues. Some also signposted new CC content > that might be relevant for the course, so the process of engaging with > authors of CC material was positive and useful (and time consuming). > > > > Cheers, > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > *From:* Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On > Behalf Of *Lorna M Campbell > *Sent:* 06 January 2014 13:11 > > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: OERs and MOOCS > > > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > Yes this is interesting. > > I thought I seen something in the terms for Futurelearn partners that the > institution must own all copyright for content. Don’t recall any mention of > potential for reusing others' open content but don’t take my word on that… > > > > I confess I glaze over every time I try to read terms and conditions > documents :} However as far as I can make out from FutureLearn's T&C, they > are the owners or licensee of "all necessary IPR" and "Unless otherwise > stated, copyright in the Online Content and Courses belongs to the relevant > Partner Institution providing the Online Content and Courses." > > > > However there is another clause that states: > > > > "Certain Partner Institutions may, at their own discretion, make available > certain Online Content and Courses under a Creative Commons licence > (non-Commercial). Should Partner Institutions choose to do this, it will be > clearly identified on the appropriate Online Content and Courses page of > the Website and we acknowledge that the Creative Commons licence will > override certain of these terms and conditions as appropriate. A full copy > of the relevant Creative Commons licence will be available from a link at > that point." > > > > So presumably that covers the Nottingham course. > > > > There's also stuff about not using content for commercial purposes or to > benefit third parties. > > > > Incidentally, I’m trying to encourage the sharing of the content with the > MOOCs from Liverpool’s partnership with Futurelearn. More on this if and > when it happens as we’re still in the early days of getting our MOOC plans > together…. > > > > Sounds good! Keep us posted :) > > > > Cheers > > Lorna > > > > On 6 Jan 2014, at 12:38, Sheppard, Nick <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > I started* the Web Science MOOC from Soton…asked on Twitter and said all > resources would be released through EdShare. No further details… > > > > *may need to resit > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > *From:* Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> > ] *On Behalf Of *Lorna M Campbell > *Sent:* 06 January 2014 12:29 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: OERs and MOOCS > > > > Happy New year folks! > > > > This is a good start to the year. Very encouraging to see another MOOCs > using open educational resources. Out of interest, does anyone know of any > other MOOCs, in addition to UoL Common Law and Nottingham Sustainability & > Society, that use OERs? > > > > All the best > > Lorna > > > > On 6 Jan 2014, at 10:01, David Kernohan wrote: > > > > Hi Andy – really pleased that you are doing this and have made all the > resources openly available – great news! Pat Lockley managed to do similar > on his UoL Common Law MOOC, and we’re starting to see a few others making a > commitment to sharing. > > > > Happy new year, OER-DISCUSS. > > > > David > > > > - > > David Kernohan > > Jisc > > > > *From:* Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> > ] *On Behalf Of *Andy Beggan > *Sent:* 06 January 2014 09:38 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* OERs and MOOCS > > > > Dear all > > > > *Apologies for cross posting and the blatant pug.* > > > > I thought the list might be interested in this new MOOC we have just > launched on Futurelearn, titled Sustainability, Society and You ( > https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/sustainability-society-and-you). The > course tries to adhere closely to the aims and objectives of OERs as much > as possible, and is 8 weeks long with hundreds of OERs of various types > from external sources. We have also made the entire course itself available > under a Creative Commons licence. > > > > In particular the list may be interested in week 6 (starting 10th Feb, > but available now) which looks at learning and sustainability and in > particular to the role of OERs in sustainable practice. > > > > Enjoy! > > > > Kind regards > > Andy Beggan > > Head of Learning Technology > > Learning Technology Blog<http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/learningtechnology/> > > > > About Open Nottingham<http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/open/opennottingham.aspx> > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > -- Lorna M Campbell -- > > Assistant Director, Cetis > > Web: www.cetis.ac.uk > > Blog: lornamcampbell.wordpress.com > > Mail: [log in to unmask] > Twitter: LornaMCampbell > Skype: lorna120768 > > > > > > To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to > http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm > > > > > > -- Lorna M Campbell -- > > Assistant Director, Cetis > > Web: www.cetis.ac.uk > > Blog: lornamcampbell.wordpress.com > > Mail: [log in to unmask] > Twitter: LornaMCampbell > Skype: lorna120768 > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > -- Lorna M Campbell -- > > Assistant Director, Cetis > > Web: www.cetis.ac.uk > > Blog: lornamcampbell.wordpress.com > > Mail: [log in to unmask] > Twitter: LornaMCampbell > Skype: lorna120768 > > > > > > > -- > > > > Cable Green, PhD > Director of Global Learning > > Creative Commons > @cgreen <http://twitter.com/cgreen> > http://creativecommons.org/education > *reuse, revise, remix & redistribute* > > > > > > > > > > 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. > >