hi rob,

>
>> 1. We are using only public domain and creative commons licensed  
>> images
>> in our examples.  We did a fair amount of research, and realized that
>> our image budget would be larger than the entire budget for our book
>> (http://www.blog.digital-foundations.net/?p=4).  So we turned to the
>> public domain and creative commons for our examples:
>> http://flickr.com/photos/digitalfoundations
>
> Wrapping PD images in an NC work is commons enclosure.

let me state from the beginning, i am not a guru of licensure.   
sometimes i feel like i need a law degree to parse everything.  but,  
as far as i understand, if you state the license of each work  
included, you are not doing commons enclosure.  same with using  
proprietary (C) work.  so you state at the front all work is CC unless  
otherwise stated.  and you state it at each image if it is otherwise.   
this was confirmed by a CC rep.  i had to ask this in order to get  
perms from Peachpit.

>> 2. We have secured the first Creative Commons license from
>> Peachpit/Pearson.  (CC+, BY-NC-SA)  We don't actually have the  
>> contract
>> signed yet (LOL) but we do have the go-ahead.  This is huge.  Not  
>> just
>> as a symbolic marker of the acceptance of 'openness' in the  
>> proprietary
>> media world, but b/c of what it allows us to do.  Remember: Better  
>> and
>> Faster
>
> NC-SA is not "Open". It does not fit any of the definitions of Open  
> Source, Free Software or Free Culture. It is a sharecropping or free  
> advertising licence.
>
> This is one of the problems with the word "Open". It is warm and  
> fuzzy and covers a multitude of sins.

Open is a wide word.  GPL is a defined license.  LGPL is a defined  
license.  and CC+ BY-NC-SA is also a defined license.  all of these  
are not copyright.  all of these control the final output.  you could  
argue that GPL is not open, b/c you can't close it and use it for  
further proprietary software. each license has its restrictions.  any  
restriction is not openness. and yet all are open, in that they are  
open to other terms than copyright.

Do you take the same issue with SA?  or GPL vs LGPL?

but ultimately, I don't think that is the major point here.  we scored  
a huge coup by getting peachpit/pearson to try a CC licensed book of  
any variant.  we had to make compromises: it is NC.  it is also CC+.   
so this means that FLOSS Manuals can do the great work they do w/ us,  
and if that manual is to be used commercial (e.g. published in print  
elsewhere) then a licensing agreement is to be worked out through the  
CC+ license.

fundamentally, this is a curriculum project.  we aim to change the  
curriculum of introductory media arts education in the US and abroad  
through this textbook.  therefore it is absolutely imperative that we  
have the institutional backing of AIGA (American Institute of Graphic  
Arts, *the* design professional organization and co-publisher.)  And  
the market penetration and deliver of Pearson/Peachpit, the largest  
English language ed publisher.  So we compromise.

I want to put something in about political process and compromise, but  
I will just say, all processes involving opposing interests involve  
negotiations and compromise.  And getting Pearson/Peachpit to  
compromise and grant us a CC license of any kind is worth our  
compromise to make it NC.  I remind you, this is a first.

Each situation is tailored to each specific goals.  Another project we  
are working on in the OpenLab is the Bright Idea Shade, which is  
licensed CC-BY-SA.  (http://eyebeam.org/project/bright-idea-shade)

The Bright Idea Shade is a project of the Eyebeam OpenLab, by  
Sustainability Action Group members Michael Mandiberg and Steve  
Lambert, with Simon Jolly, Peter Duyan, and Oscar Torres. We are  
converting all of our silver tipped incandescent bulbs into CFL bulbs  
(as they burn out.) The problem is a bare CFL bulb gives off very  
harsh light. So we set about designing a lampshade for the bulbs. We  
took several existing models and customized the design to fit a CFL  
bulb, built it out of heat resistant photo diffuser material, found a  
diffuser material that could be laser cut, and built a laser cutter  
template. We will be posting shortly an instructable with all the  
templates and other goodness. Plus a DIY kit.

We are going to undertake a large promotional push to get these kits  
into the hands of decision makers at retailers and manufacturers like  
Target, Walmart, Kmart, Ikea, Home Depot, Bed Bath And Beyond, etc.   
We/I have no interest in doing the long term manufacture &  
distribution of this item.  The promise of the CC-BY-SA license is  
that it can go out in the world and be reproduce by others who have  
much better distribution channels and manufacturing expertise.

We are giving it away because we do not have access to the channels of  
distribution, and would not otherwise.  This is the opposite of  the  
Digital Foundations project, where the only way we can have access is  
by compromising and going NC.

it is all about access to distribution.

i've tried to do DIY distribution, but i find it very hard to work.   
unless you want to start your own label for everything you do.  and I  
do too many different things to do that.  partnership and teamwork.   
collaboration and openness.  faster and better.

>> Imagine: Josef Alber's
>> color exercises as a means of explaining how to use the color  
>> picker in
>> InkScape... in Farsi. This is openness because it is Better and  
>> Faster.
>
> The text and images of Alber's exercises may be under copyright. And  
> Albers is long dead and unable to give permission for translations.  
> His estate may deny permission. If his work was copyleft and this  
> copyleft wasn't broken by an NC restriction then this wouldn't be a  
> problem.
>

again, i'm not a copyright lawyer, but one of them that i have spoken  
to explained it to me this way: "you cannot copyright an idea, only  
the expression of an idea."  so the exact colors and words that albers  
may have used are copyright, but the idea that hue has a value, or  
that colors interact in defined was are not copyrightable.  otherwise  
every foundations studies course in the world would be breaking  
copyright law. we are employing the principles, and the general  
exercises, not the specific words and colors.

yours,

michael