I also think the NC decision is an academic instinct a lot of the time that commercial == evil, and should be prevented. I can see cases for NC licensing (I'm not a zealous Libran), but I'm not sure that the NC decision is always well informed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph.Corneli
Sent: 05 November 2012 15:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [OERU] Keeping MOOCs Open - gratis and libre

Hi Amber:

First, I think it's important to note that Stallman himself releases some of his writings under "No Derivatives" terms.  He views software and writing to be fundamentally different and he seems to have in mind "moral rights".  I think he's right about that.

However, I think that some people are drawn to things like NC/ND *not* because they have informed views (like Stallman's), but, I'd swear, because these people think something like "More two-letter acronyms must mean the work is 'more free'."  Or, "I'm 100% in favor of people to using this work for any beneficial purpose whatsoever, but I don't want them making money off it, because money is evil!"  Frankly, I think these people are confused.

Rather unfortunately, the confused view plays directly into the hands and interests of publishing companies, who like the more restrictive licenses because it allows them to retain a relative monopoly, while still undercutting other, bigger, monopolies.  (Money is evil, remember.)

Like many things, "education" is key (so that people can really make intelligent choices about licenses, so that their choices relate to their actual intentions).  In particular, people need to understand why they'll NEVER see NC/ND stuff on Wikipedia or other sites that *are* oriented towards peer-produced education materials.  CC-By-NC/ND doesn't mix well with peer production.  For things like single-author essays, there's no point in trying.  For other kinds of resources, some introspection is worthwhile.

Joe





________________________________________
From: Scott Wilson [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 1:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [OERU] Keeping MOOCs Open - gratis and libre

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


--
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
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.