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

Tue Nov 27 08:24:52 MST 2012

Hi all.

Quick comment. I think there is some confusions here. Both definitions
of open and free from the open definition of Open Knowledge Foundation
[1] and the definition of free cultural works [2] allow comertial use

http://opendefinition.org/

http://freedomdefined.org/Definition

I believe both definitions agree with each other on what is meant by
open or free (as in freedom).

Tom

2012/11/27 Stracke, Christian <Christian.Stracke at icb.uni-due.de>:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I share the view by Stephen:
>
> In my terminology it is the difference between open and free
>
> (what I have also referred to in the beginning discussing open standards):
>
> Open access to the resources and/or cost-free access.
>
> You can have all combinations: open&free, open&pay, closed&free, closed&pay
>
>
>
> And for me open access is more important but the best solution for OERs is
> open AND free of course.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
> With best regards
>
>
>
> Christian Stracke
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Christian M. Stracke
>
> Convener ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36/WG5
> Chair CEN TC 353
> HR, E-Learning, Quality and Competence Development
> University of Duisburg-Essen, Campus Essen
> Universitaetsstr. 9 (ICB)
> D-45141 Essen (Germany)
>
> Tel.: +49-(0)201-183-4410
> Fax: +49-(0)201-183-4067
> E-mail: Christian.Stracke at icb.uni-due.de
>
> LINQ The Leading Conference for Learning Innovations and Quality
> http://www.learning-innovations.eu
>
> QLET for Quality in Learning, Education and Training
> http://www.qualitydevelopment.eu
>
> AGRICOM for Agriculture Competences in Europe
> http://www.agriculture-competences.eu
>
> Q.E.D. supports Quality and Standards in e-Learning
> http://www.qed-info.de
>
> CEN/TC 353 "ICT for Learning, Education and Training"
> http://www.cen.eu/isss/TC_353
>
> ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 "IT for Learning, Education and Training"
> http://www.sc36.org
>
>
>
> Von: oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca
> [mailto:oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca] Im Auftrag von Stephen Downes
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2012 14:35
> An: oer-community
> Betreff: Re: [Oer-community] On-line education is using a flawed Creative
> Commons license
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> - 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
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> -- 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
>
>
>
> 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), 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, 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
>

-- 
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
Open Knowledge Foundation Brasil