 |
 |
From my experience of trying to get in touch with OER sites (re broken feeds, poor metadata) it just doesn't happen. I lost count of the amount of plone CMS people I emailed to say their feeds didn't work On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Jason Miles-Campbell < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Would it be worth inviting the licensors to put forward their OERs for > inclusion in the project, and in doing so, agree to the particular scheme? > The downside is that it's not then demand driven. But I think the > alternative is, at best, uncertainty, and at worse, legal risk. > > > > Cheers, > Jason > > *Jason Miles-Campbell *|* Manager *| *Jisc** Legal* | *T* 0141 548 2889 > | *E [log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>* > > *Jisc Legal, a part of Jisc, is hosted by the University of Strathclyde, > a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number > SC015263* > > > > *From:* Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On > Behalf Of *Pat Lockley > *Sent:* 18 March 2014 13:55 > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: non-profit = non-commercial > > > > Just for context - discussion on the OKFN open education list re providing > access to OER in areas with next to no electricity or devices with which > you could access the web (if even the web exists) - the example being used > was Syria. Apologies if this all sounds a bit colonial, countries are > referenced to aid discussion only (could equally apply to printing OER for > libraries here). > > Thought was there be a place which took digital OER and made it into > physical form, say Oxford Lectures onto a DVD, or Open Stax epubs as > printed, bound books. Obviously this needs money, so logic said sell at a > slight profit to those who could pay, with the idea that the profit would > allow for OER packs to be made available to charities working in these > areas for free. > > So getting in touch might work, but it might take a long time, and I'm not > that keen on patience, I've already enough virtues > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Suzanne Hardy < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > That's really good advice Jason, thank you. > > > > Very timely for me...... and a great reminder that asking the licensor is > always the best course of action. > > > > Communication is key :) > > > > > > Suzanne > > -- > > Suzanne Hardy > Senior Project Officer > Quality in Learning and Teaching (QuILT) > Room 2.70 Bedson Building > Newcastle University > Newcastle upon Tyne > NE1 7RU > > Tel: 0191 208 3264 > 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 18 Mar 2014, at 13:18, Jason Miles-Campbell < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > It's a limitation of using loosely defined terms in a licence. Great > for meeting the perceived needs of licensors (arguably), not so comfortable > for users. However, in most use cases (I almost typo'd 'use' as 'sue' - > Freudian slip?!), a sensible decision will suffice. In others, I'll grant, > it's an inconvenient choice between don't use/ask/use with risk. > > > > With respect to the opening scenario, and noting that only the licensee > can make the risk decision, if the payment could be shown only to cover the > costs of physical reproduction, and that it was part of an activity which > could classed as being within the 'public good', and if it wasn't otherwise > related to a commercial activity, I'd be taking a decision that such > reproduction was consistent with NC. However, I'd be first checking to see > whether I could stick to OERs which didn't have the NC restriction (and if > so, perhaps telling NC licensors that their OERs aren't being included > because of the uncertainty over that restriction. > > > Cheers, > > Jason > > *Jason Miles-Campbell *|* Manager *| *Jisc** Legal* | *T* 0141 548 2889 > | *E [log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>* > > *Jisc Legal, a part of Jisc, is hosted by the University of Strathclyde, > a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number > SC015263* > > > > *From:* Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> > ] *On Behalf Of *Pat Lockley > *Sent:* 18 March 2014 13:06 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: non-profit = non-commercial > > > > ok, so 4 pints IOU attached > > So if NC is defined by the licensor, then you'd need some level of due > diligence (to upgrade from "getting it") would be required and logistically > this could only be via a side letter / communication with the licensor? > Which works with a small set of materials but not really with a large > collection > > Thanks though > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jason Miles-Campbell < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > The fundamental issue here is that 'non-commercial' is not an > externally-defined concept. As part of a licence, it represents the > understanding between the licensor and the licensee, in the particular > context which brings them together. Statutory terms are often defined > explicitly, or through the consideration of the courts. However, terms of > a licence can only be defined as part of that licence. So it's not about > 'getting' NC, it's about the in-built ambiguity of a concept that depends > on its context. That's why the report that Creative Commons commissioned > on the NC restriction didn't conclude with definitive statements as to its > meaning. Instead, it analysed various factors which could be considered. > > > > Now, it might be advantageous to remove such uncertainty, and, as I > understand it, I think there may have been some consideration of removing > the NC qualified licences from the CC 4.0 suite (as it happens, they stayed > in). The sticking point, I think, is that there is a strong demand from > licensors to be able to restrict commercial use. Perhaps if licensors were > offered a more closely defined restriction "NTBS" (not to be sold), they'd > be willing to switch. > > > > In the meantime, licensors are free to define their interpretation of NC, > or answer queries on such, as they like. They are likewise free to use an *ad > hoc* licence if the CC terms don't suit them. As much as I would like to > be granted omnipotence to define 'NC' once and for all for the universe, > that doesn't fit, alas, for better or worse, with the art of licence > interpretation. > > > > In the absence of omnipotence, I'm always willing after four pints and a > signed disclaimer to give my views on the application of NC in any > particular use scenario J > > > > Cheers, > > Jason > > *Jason Miles-Campbell *|* Manager *| *Jisc** Legal* | *T* 0141 548 2889 > | *[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>* > > *Jisc Legal, a part of Jisc, is hosted by the University of Strathclyde, > a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number > SC015263* > > > > *From:* Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On > Behalf Of *Pat Lockley > *Sent:* 18 March 2014 11:51 > > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: non-profit = non-commercial > > > > The only time at work I wanted to use a NC license I asked the creator for > their definition and we agreed the use case I presented was commercial so I > didn't use it. > > So to summise so far > > 1) No one really gets NC > > 2) Some people feel the spirit of NC means non-profit is ok (which I agree > with) > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Scott Wilson < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > On 18 Mar 2014, at 11:22, David Kernohan wrote: > > > Hi all - no-one has ever understood the creative commons non-commercial > clause. There are rumours that somebody at CC central once did, but this > was quickly hushed up and the person responsible is now safely hidden away > in Kazakhstan. > > > > Unsurprisingly, there is little case-law around NC. > > > > A former Dutch MTV VJ (remember VJs?) shared some images on Flickr via a > BY-NC-SA license and a gossip magazine reprinted them. The magazine was > fined and told not to do it again, but this centred on the SA component of > the license. > > http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6052292.html > > > > The Vodafone Australia case ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Mobile_Australia ) was the other main > one, but all mentions other than on Wikipedia now appear to be behind "The > Australian" 's paywall. > > > > I've been consistent in advising people always to go for -SA clauses > rather than -NC clauses to avoid confusion (and I'll reiterate this here > for any new readers). But if something is NC and your use may be commercial > in some obvious way I would advise people to contact the source of the > material and ask them. > > Also worth remembering that the rights owner can issue the same resource > with different licenses. So there is nothing to prevent the rights owner > issuing a standard commercial use license that removes the "NC" ambiguity. > > Though if you do issue resources under an NC clause, I think the best > strategy is to prominently display an explanation of what YOU think NC > means, as that will help licensees figure if they can comply with your > intent. > > > > > > David > > > > > > - > > David Kernohan > > Jisc > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of Alex Fenlon > > Sent: 18 March 2014 11:01 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: non-profit = non-commercial > > > > Hi Pat et al. > > > > I remember several of these discussions taking place over recent weeks > and months (and years even!) as we've struggled with the different > interpretations. I seem to recall there was something from CC themselves > about taking care to define what NC means. I think the advice was for each > Licensor that grants an NC licence to consider what it defines as > commercial use and also NC. This would remove the ambiguity at least for > Licencees of those particular works and help in those circumstances. (I > also have bells ringing where certain OER-ers did do this ... ?) > > > > Not sure that helps much either with the umbrella approach you might be > looking for Pat. > > > > Alex. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of Chris.Pegler > > Sent: 18 March 2014 10:53 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: non-profit = non-commercial > > > > Pat > > > > If its non profit its not profitable after all costs are accounted for, > which raises an issue about what the costs are and so what the 'cost price' > is. For example its common in universities for the cost of an academic to > include not only their salary but also a whole load of overheads. This can > almost double the cost and includes an automatic allocation to all sorts of > general expenses. Did you mean 'direct costs'? > > > > This sort of discussion also comes up when charities charge large admin > fees. For example including large salaries. > > > > This may not be the solution that you are looking for? > > > > Chris > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Pat Lockley [[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: 18 March 2014 10:41 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: non-profit = non-commercial > > > > Hello all, > > > > Discussion in the other place led me to an sticking point with NC > licenses > > > > If there was a site which sold - at cost price - physical copies of > presently digital OER, say bound printed epubs or CDs / DVDs, and in the > sale of these items made no profit (so was non-profit / > > provident?) would you consider that commercial? > > > > Thinking is for people who don't have easy access to the internet this > might prove a useful intermediary > > > > Pat > > -- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an > exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC > 038302). > > > > >