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

Tue Nov 27 11:39:37 MST 2012

Stop the presses. I'm going to agree with Stephen here.

In an earlier mail Stephen argued that _perspective_ plays a
significant role in this debate. He couldn't be more correct. Just as
there is not One True License, there is not One True Perspective on
this debate. A few examples:

- Some people look at OER issues from the perspective of the content,
and some see them from the perspective of the people who use the
content. Content-p drives people to favor SA licenses, to insure that
derivatives of the content always remain free. People-p drives people
to reject SA, so that derivers always remain free to license their
derivatives as they choose. Which is the One True Perspective?

- In this thread we have already seen people who view NC from the
perspective of the licensor and others who see NC from the perspective
of the licensee. Licensor-p sees NC as enabling and facilitating
commercialization. Licensee-p sees NC as forbidding commercialization.
Which is the One True Perspective?

- As we're also seeing on this thread, we can look at OER from the
perspective of Access to content (without which permissions granted by
licenses are meaningless) and from the perspective of the permissions
granted by Licenses. I recently discussed these two perspectives in
more detail on my blog (http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2596).
Which of these perspectives is most important? Which is the One True
Perspective?

- As a final example, some people look at "open" from the perspective
of a Bright Line test, while others take a more Accepting perspective.
Bright Line-p enables people to make clear distinctions between what
is and what is not open. Accepting-p enables people to recognize and
value movements toward becoming more open, without passing judgments
on people who "aren't there yet." Which of these is the One True
Perspective?

In my 2008 OpenCourseWars story
(http://opencontent.org/docs/future-history-of-oer.pdf), I used a
jihadi metaphor to describe licensing conversations. The jihadi
metaphor is appropriate because LICENSING ARGUMENTS ARE ARGUMENTS OF
PERSPECTIVE. When we argue that one particular way of licensing is
better than others, we're really arguing that one perspective is
better or truer than others. In other words, whenever we make an
argument that says "everyone should use a [free | NC | etc.] license,"
we are making a _religious_ argument - an argument which dictates the
perspective by which we think everyone else should be judged.

When we move licensing outside the realm of religion, we can recognize
the truth of Stephen's claim about the importance of perspective. We
can also realize that, depending on the peculiarities of a specific
context and the personal or organizational perspectives of a specific
licensor, different licenses will be optimal under different
circumstances.

It would be great if the world were simple enough that One License to
Rule Them All could exist, but it doesn't. I wish to Heaven we would
stop arguing about it, and just respect individuals and organizations
to understand their own contexts, goals, and perspectives sufficiently
well to pick the license that best meets their needs.

D

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:39 AM, rory <rory at athabascau.ca> wrote:
> Stephen,
> And furthermore . . .
> (:-)
> Rory
>
> On 12-11-27 6:08 AM, Stephen Downes wrote:
>
> Hiya all,
> Again, not to pursue the argument regarding the One True License beyond
> reason in the present forum...
> . . . .{omitted by Rory- not pertinent to this response}
>
> I have no objection to the mechanism whereby OERu converts OERs it receives
> for free from volunteers into revenues for universities. What I object to is
> the ongoing campaign by OERu staff to depict non-commercial OERs as
> 'non-free' and to lobby for their exclusion from the definition of 'free
> educational resources'. I wish to pursue my support of OERs in such a way
> that does not impose significant cost on students. To this date, the best
> and only mechanism for ensuring their use of OERs remains genuinely free is
> through the use of the NC license.
>
> RORY>>> Not true. NC does NOT prevent commercialization. It encourages it.
> Private companies want the exclusive right to distribute so they license it
> directly from the author a la Flatworld.  NC promotes and supports
> commercialization. People in Canada have free access to water. Others bottle
> it and people pay for it. The fact that some companies choose to sell it
> does not make water unfree. Granny can bottle her free water and sell it.
> Others can take the free water and use it gratis.
>
>
> As an aside: there is always in this context a reference to the 'original'
> version of open source licensing, and of course Stallman's four freedoms. I
> would like to point out that open source licenses existed before GPL, and
> open content licenses existed before Creative Commons. Until the
> intervention of staff from large U.S. universities
> (Berkeley-Stanford-MIT-Harvard) these licenses required that distribution be
> unencumbered with cost. It is only with the intervention of staff from these
> institutions that 'free' comes to mean 'commercial'.
>
> RORY>>> CC-BY does not mean commercial. Nor does free water  (or free air
> for that matter - yes some are selling it). This is a problem among
> educational researchers who tie themselves down to a principle. The forget
> that BOTH are possible and can exist side by side. For example because the
> OERu is pursuing one model  some think that this in some way denigrates or
> restricts other models that may or may not be more open. BOTH or even ALL
> are possible.
>
>
> Again: people may attach licenses allowing commerical use to their work if
> they wish. I have no objection to this. But such people should cease and
> desist their ongoing campaign to have works that are non-commercial in
> intent, and free in distribution, classified as 'not free'. Content that
> cannot be enclosed within a paywall, and cannot be distributed with
> commercial encumbrances attached, is just as free - indeed, more free - than
> so-called 'free' commercial content.
>
> RORY>>> Or, you may attach an NC license so that you can further restrict
> the sale of your free content to one and only one company with an NC
> licence. Why does Flatworld insist on the NC licence for their content??
> I, for one, shall continue to characterise NC licensed material as not-free
> - simply because content with this restriction is NOT FREE. Water is free
> you can use if as you like or you can sell it. NC restricted content limits
> the selling option to one person.
>
>
> -- Stephen
>
>
>
>
> On 2012-11-27 4:36 AM, Wayne Mackintosh wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Stephen Downes <stephen at downes.ca> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Stephen, your assumption is incorrect with reference to access to learning
> materials and the OERu assessment model.
>
> The founding OERu anchors partners, as per the decisions of the inaugural
> meeting which was streamed live with back-channels for the open community to
> engage and participate in all activities agreed:
>
> to conduct all planning activities of the OERu openly and transparently in
> WikiEducator and you can monitor progress from the open planning portal in
> the wiki where all discussions are conducted with radical transparency
> inviting contributions from all interested parties including non-OERu
> members. Furthermore there are no restrictions to anyone joining the OERu
> open planning discussion groups.
> to develop OERu courses in WIkiEducator. To date all OER Foundation courses
> have been conducted openly in the wiki and all interested people of free to
> follow and participate in OERu courses without the requirement to register
> an account on any of the OER Foundation maintained websites. Moreover, the
> open community governance policy of the WikiEducator community states that:
> "In collaboration with WikiEducators around the world, the governance
> structure provides the organisational framework to support the community in
> the achievement of its aims, maintaining the essential freedoms of the
> project resources, and making these available on the Internet in perpetuity'
> -- as a matter of public policy.  Given that WikiEducator policy requires
> the use of free cultural works approved licenses inclusive of the
> requirement for open and editable file formats, in practice this means that
> if ever the OER Foundation we're unable to sustain its activities
> financially, we would make the data base available for anyone to reuse in
> open and editable file formats.
>
> Stephen, your statement in the context of the OERu suggesting that "It's not
> free if you can't access it" does not hold true for the OERu collaboration.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> --
> Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
> Director OER Foundation
> Director, International Centre for Open Education, Otago Polytechnic
> Commonwealth of Learning Chair in OER, Otago Polytechnic
> Founder and elected Community Council Member, WikiEducator
> Mobile +64 21 2436 380
> Skype: WGMNZ1
> Twitter | identi.ca
> Wikiblog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>