[Oer-community] On-line education is using a flawed Creative Commons license

[rory]

Stephen,
And more discussion. See below.
All the best.
Rory
On 12-11-27 6:35 AM, Stephen Downes wrote:
> Hiya all,
>
> To follow up on some points made by Rory:
>
> Content (under whatever license) is 'enclosed' when it is contained 
> behind a barrier such as proprietary encryption, a digital lock or a 
> paywall. Enclosure does not restrict the content itself, but restricts 
> access to the content; access is granted (typically under some other 
> name) only via some concession, such as payment, or provision of 
> personal information.
> .
RORY>>> I cannot agree. If one specific instance of the content is 
behind a barrier, this does not restrict access to the content. With an 
open licence it can be accessed elsewhere or anywhere freely even if 10 
companies or institutions have it behind their barriers.

NC is a barrier.
> To my understanding, all of Flat World's content will now be enclosed 
> behind a paywall. OERu assessments enclose assessment content. This 
> mailing list (OER-community) encloses content behind a subscription 
> requirement (I can't even link to discussions in my newsletter; all 
> non-subscribers see is a barrier).
RORY>>> That is my understanding also. It is ALL also under an NC 
licence, so please explain how an NC licence protects content from being 
behind a barrier??
 From what I tested, I found it impossible to find the content outside 
of this or other barriers. So, you argument about barriers holds, but it 
has nothing to do with having or not having an NC licence.  Moreover, 
because of the CC licence there is nothing to prevent anyone from 
copying the content and putting it on an open site.
> Enclosure is an important concept because it leads to 'conversion'. 
> The process of conversion is one where what was once a resource that 
> could be freely accessed is (for all practical purposes) accessible 
> only through a barrier of some sort; in other words, the content is 
> free, but has been effectively completely enclosed. This is what 
> happened (for example) to many UseNet newsgroups. It almost happened 
> to Wikipedia, and would have happened, has Google not intervened.
RORY>>> For all practical purposes the content can never be completely 
enclosed if it has an open licence. Anyone can copy and distribute it. 
If it has an NC licence, this prevents some people from distributing it. 
Note that Flatworld content has a NC SA licence so anyone (except a 
commercial entity) can not only copy the work but can also copy their 
additions and improvement to the work.
>
> Having said that, let me be clear how /perspective/ plays a 
> significant role in the free / not-free debate:
>
> - from the perspective of someone who /already has the content, /the 
> content is 'not free' if there are limitations on the/use/ of that 
> content, including the right to sell it
RORY>> We agree!
>
> - from the perspective of someone who /does not already have the 
> content/, the content is 'not free' if there are barriers preventing 
> the person from /accessing/ the content (note that the putative 
> assertion that the content 'could be made free somewhere' does not 
> constitute a removal of the all-too-practical barrier
RORY>>Barriers? Like not having an internet connexion? So it is not free 
with or without an NC restrictions??
Barriers? Like the Flatworld firewall? That has an NC restriction? That 
effectively prevents other commercial entities from removing that barrier?
>
> It is not to me surprising that the people with wealth - namely those 
> in U.S. universities - could view 'free' from the perspective of those 
> who have the content. But I speak from the perspective of one who does 
> not have access to the content. And my argument, in a nutshell, is 
> that the second perspective is just as valid as the first (even though 
> the second perspective cannot afford lobbiests).
RORY>>> Which CC licenced content do you not have access to? Example?
I would argue that the second perspective has more value, but it has 
nothing to do with having a NC restriction. In PRACTICE the CC-BY 
content is freely available online and it is the NC restricted content 
that isn't. I think you have it backwards or perhaps I am missing the 
examples that you are referring to. Please give me some CC-BY examples 
behind firewalls that are not freely available so that I can understand 
your practical position.
>
> Content behind barriers - for example, content that is being sold - is 
> 'not free'. This perspective matters. For 99 percent of the world, 
> it's the only perspective that matters.
RORY>>> Instances of content behind barriers is not free. If it is also 
available elsewhere then it is free. If (like the NC restricted 
material) is behind a firewall and not available elsewhere and can't be 
copied by other companies then it is NOT free.
>
> -- Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2012-11-26 6:18 PM, rory wrote:
>> Stephen
>> See my comments below in response.
>> (All disagreements are respectful!)
>>
>> All the best.
>> Rory
>> On 12-11-26 1:44 PM, Stephen Downes wrote:
>>>
>>> Hiya all,
>>>
>>>
>>> Without extending this into a full-blown debate, as I have already 
>>> written at length about this elsewhere:
>>>
>>> - licenses that allow commercial use are /less free/ than those that 
>>> do not, because they allow commercial entities to charge fees for 
>>> access, to lock them behind digital locks, and to append conditions 
>>> that prohibit their reuse
>>>
>> RORY>> I disagree. One can also lock NC licensed material behind a 
>> digital lock. Or  print it out. Then others can't use it. So, NC is 
>> no less free than any other open licence. In either case, the only 
>> work that is "locked" is the specific instance of the work that has 
>> been taken by the user. All other instances are still open. If it is 
>> available elsewhere online, then locking it up at any one site is not 
>> relevant.
>>>
>>> - works licensed with a Non-commercial clause are fully and equally 
>>> open educational resources, and are in many cases the only OERs 
>>> actually accessible to people (because the content allowing 
>>> commercial use tends to have costs associated with it)
>>>
>> RORY>> I disagree. If a work is NC it is NOT open to institutions 
>> that charge tuition for their courses. In fact no institutions can 
>> use NC material, unless they (and the law) sees their tuition fees as 
>> being non-commercial, although some interpret non profit as being NC. 
>> This differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To clarify, because I 
>> may misunderstand you, could you please supply an example  or 
>> examples of a CC work that is locked down and that I cannot access.. 
>> A site may be locked down but if the material is freely available 
>> elsewhere then the content is NOT locked down.
>>>
>>> - the supposition that works that cost money can be 'free' is a 
>>> trick of language, a fallacy that fools contributors into sharing 
>>> for commercial use content they intended to make available to the 
>>> world without charge
>>>
>> RORY>>> I disagree: I can charge for openly licensed material and I 
>> can give it for free at the same time. For example, IRRODL is fully 
>> freely available and it is also on some databases that charge for the 
>> service. So it can cost money and it is free at the same time. Also, 
>> AUPress which uses the NC licence allows free downloads AND sells the 
>> books in different formats. AUPress didn't trick the authors.
>>>
>>> - the lobby very loudly making the case for commercial-friendly 
>>> licenses and recommending that NC content be shunned consists almost 
>>> entirely of commercial publishers and related interests seeking to 
>>> make money off (no-longer) 'free' content.
>>>
>> RORY>>> I disagree. I am non-commercial as is the Commonwealth of 
>> Learning, the OER Foundation, the OCWC, the Creative Commons etc. 
>> etc. etc. We are loudly making the case for shunning NC licensing. So 
>> it is a fallacy to state that this group is made up of "entirely 
>> commercial publishers".  We are not their "related interest" either. 
>> Nor are we seeking to make money.
>>>
>>> The problem with this is the Flat World publications or the OERu 
>>> assessment scenario - content deposited with the intent that it be 
>>> available without cost is converted into a commercial product. It's 
>>> not free if you can't access it. Content is different from software, 
>>> it can be locked (or 'enclosed') in ways free software cannot, 
>>> without violating the license.
>>>
>> RORY>>> I disagree. What CC material have they locked down that we 
>> cannot access. I'll believe it when I see it. Their site may be 
>> locked, but the content can be accessed from elsewhere. One example 
>> would be a school that downloads CC content to its server which is 
>> closed or locked down. You cannot access the content there so it is 
>> as equally locked as at the Flat Earth site. The NC license does not 
>> prevent this. For example, FlatWorld has books under an NC license 
>> and they still "lock it down". They even have some books under NC and 
>> SA and still "lock it down".  For profits may be more aggressive in 
>> promoting the books, but anyone can take a copy and make it available 
>> online for free. The community needs to be more aggressive in doing this.
>>
>>
>>> In sum, this discussion would be better conducted without further 
>>> debated about which open license 'is best' and especially with 
>>> fervent declarations in favour of commercial-friendly licensing. The 
>>> suggestion that the free sharing of non-commercial content is not 
>>> 'practical' is not Stallman at his best, and is refuted by the 
>>> experiences of millions in the field.
>>>
>> RORY>> I disagree. This is an important discussion that needs to be 
>> open. The NC license is NOT open. It is restricted. No one can 
>> legally enclose a CC -BY work. Adding an NC restriction to the 
>> content does not make it more open. It makes it less open.
>>>
>>> -- Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2012-11-26 3:58 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga wrote:
>>>> An interesting text by Stallman, which I copy bellow and emphasize 
>>>> some points in italic. See also the article on permission culture 
>>>> at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permission_culture
>>>>
>>>> *On-line education is using a flawed Creative Commons license* 
>>>> <http://stallman.org/articles/online-education.html>
>>>>
>>>> Prominent universities are using a nonfree license for their 
>>>> digital educational works. That is bad already, but even worse, the 
>>>> license they are using has a serious inherent problem.
>>>>
>>>> When a work is made for doing a practical job, the users must have 
>>>> control over the job, so they need to have control over the work. 
>>>> This applies to software, and to educational works too. For the 
>>>> users to have this control, they need certain freedoms (see gnu.org 
>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>), and we say the work 
>>>> is "free" (or "libre", to emphasize we are not talking about 
>>>> price). For works that might be used in commercial contexts, the 
>>>> requisite freedom includes commercial use, redistribution and 
>>>> modification.
>>>>
>>>> Creative Commons publishes six principal licenses. Two are 
>>>> free/libre licenses: the Sharealike license CC-BY-SA is a 
>>>> free/libre license with copyleft <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft>, and 
>>>> the Attribution license (CC-BY) is a free/libre license without 
>>>> copyleft. The other four are nonfree, either because they don't 
>>>> allow modification (ND, Noderivs) or because they don't allow 
>>>> commercial use (NC, Nocommercial).
>>>>
>>>> In my view, nonfree licenses are ok for works of art/entertainment, 
>>>> or that present personal viewpoints (such as this article itself). 
>>>> Those works aren't meant for doing a practical job, so the argument 
>>>> about the users' control does not apply. Thus, I do not object if 
>>>> they are published with the CC-BY-NC-ND license, which allows only 
>>>> noncommercial redistribution of exact copies.
>>>>
>>>> Use of this license for a work does not mean that you can't 
>>>> possibly publish that work commercially or with modifications. The 
>>>> license doesn't give permission for that, but you could ask the 
>>>> copyright holder for permission, perhaps offering a quid pro quo, 
>>>> and you might get it. It isn't automatic, but it isn't impossible.
>>>>
>>>> /However, two of the nonfree CC licenses lead to the creation of 
>>>> works that can't in practice be published commercially, because 
>>>> there is no feasible way to ask for permission. These are CC-BY-NC 
>>>> and CC-BY-NC-SA, the two CC licenses that permit modification but 
>>>> not commercial use./
>>>>
>>>> /The problem arises because, with the Internet, people can easily 
>>>> (and lawfully) pile one noncommercial modification on another. Over 
>>>> decades this will result in works with contributions from hundreds 
>>>> or even thousands of people./
>>>>
>>>> /What happens if you would like to use one of those works 
>>>> commercially? How could you get permission? You'd have to ask all 
>>>> the substantial copyright holders. Some of them might have 
>>>> contributed years before and be impossible to find. Some might have 
>>>> contributed decades before, and might well be dead, but their 
>>>> copyrights won't have died with them. You'd have to find and ask 
>>>> their heirs, supposing it is possible to identify those. In 
>>>> general, it will be impossible to clear copyright on the works that 
>>>> these licenses invite people to make./
>>>>
>>>> /This is a form of the well-known "orphan works" problem, except 
>>>> exponentially worse; when combining works that had many 
>>>> contributors, the resulting work can be orphaned many times over 
>>>> before it is born./
>>>>
>>>> To eliminate this problem would require a mechanism that involves 
>>>> asking _someone_ for permission (otherwise the NC condition turns 
>>>> into a nullity), but doesn't require asking _all the contributors_ 
>>>> for permission. It is easy to imagine such mechanisms; the hard 
>>>> part is to convince the community that one such mechanisms is fair 
>>>> and reach a consensus to accept it.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that can be done, but the CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-SA licenses, 
>>>> as they are today, should be avoided.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, one of them is used quite a lot. CC-BY-NC-SA, which 
>>>> allows noncommercial publication of modified versions under the 
>>>> same license, has become the fashion for online educational works. 
>>>> MIT's "Open Courseware" got it stared, and many other schools 
>>>> followed MIT down the wrong path. Whereas in software "open source" 
>>>> means "probably free, but I don't dare talk about it so you'll have 
>>>> to check for yourself," in many online education projects "open" 
>>>> means "nonfree for sure".
>>>>
>>>> Even if the problem with CC-BY-NC-SA and CC-BY-NC is fixed, they 
>>>> still won't be the right way to release educational works meant for 
>>>> doing practical jobs. The users of these works, teachers and 
>>>> students, must have control over the works, and that requires 
>>>> making them free. I urge Creative Commons to state that works meant 
>>>> for practical jobs, including educational resources and reference 
>>>> works as well as software, should be released under free/libre 
>>>> licenses only.
>>>>
>>>> /Educators, and all those who wish to contribute to on-line 
>>>> educational works: please do not to let your work be made non-free. 
>>>> Offer your assistance and text to educational works that carry 
>>>> free/libre licenses, preferably copyleft licenses so that all 
>>>> versions of the work must respect teachers' and students' freedom. 
>>>> Then invite educational activities to use and redistribute these 
>>>> works on that freedom-respecting basis, if they will. Together we 
>>>> can make education a domain of freedom./
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
>>>> Open Knowledge Foundation Brasil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Oer-community mailing list
>>>> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
>>>> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oer-community mailing list
>>> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
>>> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>>
>> -- 
>> Rory McGreal
>> UNESCO/COL Chair in OER
>> Athabasca University
>> rory at athabascau.ca
>> Toll Free:1-855-807-0756
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oer-community mailing list
>> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
>> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oer-community mailing list
> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community

-- 
Rory McGreal
UNESCO/COL Chair in OER
Athabasca University
rory at athabascau.ca
Toll Free:1-855-807-0756


-- 
    This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it
    is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged
    information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
    recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take
    action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or
    subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.
---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20121127/c9d3c520/attachment.html