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

[David Wiley]

Brian,

The answer to your question is no, charging tuition for a class that
uses an NC licensed textbook does not violate NC. I'm trying to keep
my contributions on this open, so I've posted the actual response on
my blog - Tuition is a Movie Ticket, OER are Popcorn
(http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2618).

This is nothing but publisher FUD and we simply need some case law to
put this argument to bed. But you will never see a publisher litigate
on this issue because they know they will lose, and for their trouble
will have paid the legal fees necessary to establish the case law that
undercuts their FUD.

David

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Brian Lamb <brlamb at mail.ubc.ca> wrote:
> I am finding this discussion on the NC clause to be provocative and fun to
> read.  I find points made on both sides worthy of consideration. I am
> confused by this point of comparison by Rory:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ...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.
>
>
>
> In most places I've been, water is a publicly regulated commodity. "Granny"
> either pays a water bill, or helps support a public utility through her
> taxes. She can bottle her free water and sell it, but if she were doing it
> on such a scale that it exceeded a reasonable personal usage, she would
> likely face legal sanction. In places where water is scarce, water rationing
> is common.  And I would hope corporations or individuals would not be
> permitted to engage in commercial activities that endanger the careful
> management of a limited and valuable resource - whether by polluting it, or
> by excessive use (or control) of it.
>
> On another note, have y'all read this post by Mike Caulfield?
>
> http://hapgood.us/2012/10/31/coursera-cc-nc-and-ocw/
>
> Turns out the application of an NC license does not absolutely forbid all
> commercial use for all time. "A CC-NC license is not a blood oath; the
> license holder can negotiate exceptions."  Wow, who knew? But we would have
> to talk to each other. And this mailing list just demonstrates how much
> educators hate to talk to one another.
>
> Finally, can somebody tell me if an NC license forbids reuse by non-profit
> public education institutions that charge tuition? Seems like a fairly
> simple question, but I've heard authoritative responses that wholly
> contradict each other on that point. If such basic definitions of use are
> this unclear, I suspect we will not find consensus on this discussion.
>
> Though again, I am enjoying following the debate. Thanks to all the
> participants.
>
> Brian
>
> Brian Lamb
> Director, Innovation
> Thompson Rivers University
> Kamloops, BC, Canada
> (On leave from UBC)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oer-community mailing list
> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>