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

Fri Nov 30 11:00:32 MST 2012

Stephen,
You must have taken an ethics course. Your ability to rationalize shows 
the mind of a well-trained ethicist, who can justify any position.
The Public Domain (PD) is the MOST open, which used to be the case prior 
to 1963 when the Common Law countries adopted the European approach to 
copyright i.e. all content is copyrighted by default.
So, in fact, the CC licence were formulated proceeding from the PD.
For most (if not all) practical purposes CC does not need the BY 
designation. People who us PD works invariably mention the author in any 
case because to do otherwise would be a misrepresentation. So CC-BY is 
almost synonymous with PD. Neither PD not CC add "Commercial". ALL uses 
mean ALL uses.
See comments below
On 12-11-30 7:05 AM, Downes, Stephen wrote:
>
> Ilkka Tuomi  wrote,
>
> > Logically, CC-BY-NC is a subset of CC-BY. In this sense, it is more 
> restricted.
>
> Not so. No entity in the set "CC-BY-NC" is also in the set "CC-BY".
>
RORY>>>ALL content in CC-BY-NC is in CC and in CC-BY. Please provide me 
with ONE example of ANY content that is NC that cannot also be used by 
anyone??  It doesn't exist.  They are not disjuncts.
>
> It's a trick of the way CC licenses were originally formulated. The 
> designations /in fact/ mean:
>
> - CC-by-Commercial (CC-by-C)
>
> - CC-by-Noncommercial (CC-by-NC)
>
> So as you can see, the two sets are disjuncts, specially, not-C and C
>
RORY>> There is no trick. The CC should be CC-ALL and it is CC-ALL as a 
licence that is trying to recapture the PD. It does not mean 
CC-Commercial  as this would not make sense. It would mean that the 
licences are restricted to Commercial use only.
Each addition, including  CC itself and BY and SA and NC are 
restrictions on the PD.
>
> The creators of CC treated 'Commercial' as the default. There's no 
> reason why they should have had to do this. They could have 
> established the licenses the other way (indeed, the way I would have 
> done it):
>
RORY>>> There is every historical reason to do this. They had to do this 
because CC is an attempt to return to the Public Domain by overcoming 
legal restrictions. This was the most logical step.
>
>
> CC-by -- allows all free uses, ie., no limitations on access and 
> distribution
>
> CC-by-C -- allows commercial vendors to restrict distribution 
> contingent upon payment
>
RORY>>> This is incorrect. Allowing commercial vendors to restrict 
distribution does not in any way stop you from using the works. They can 
restrict it, but others can use it if they wish. You can buy the bottled 
water from a restricted distribution vending machine or you can use the 
free tap.  Actually, restricting content in your house by copying the 
text on paper does not allow free use. Now they own  the book. They have 
locked it down like the vendors who sell it on their web site. But in 
both case you can still access and duplicate the content.
>
> In /fact/, each of CC-by-C and CC-by-NC create restrictions. They 
> create different sets of restrictions, which may be more or less 
> limiting, depending on your perspective.
>
RORY>> No they don't. There are NO restrictions on CC -BY as it stands. 
What part of the word "ALL" do you not understand? There is no CC-C; it 
is CC-ALL because after CC,  the added conditions are Restrictions NOT 
allowances.

> The 'commercial-by-default' world in which we live is something recent 
> and something that has been created through the use of language and 
> the setting of assumptions. The creation of a 'non-commercial' clause 
> is a way of setting 'commercial' as the default. It makes it /seem/ as 
> though 'commercial' implies no additional restrictions. But it's just 
> a trick of language, just a trick of perspective.
>
RORY>>> Not true. The Public Domain was the default and that goes back 
to the beginning of writing in one opinion, but at least to 1710 with 
the first copyright statute. PD always allowed commercial use. Your 
interpretation is the sleight of hand. There is no trick of perspective. 
ALL means ALL.
>
> That's why it's false and misleading to say that 'CC-by-C' is 'more 
> free', and why people shouldn't do it.
>
> -- Stephen
>
> Stephen Downes
>
> Research Officer | Agent de recherche
>
> National Research Council Canada | Conseil national de recherches Canada
>
> Institute for Information Technology | Institut de technologie de 
> l'information
>
> 100 des Aboiteaux Street, Suite 1100 | 100, rue des Aboiteaux, suite 1100
>
> Moncton, New Brunswick | Moncton (Nouveau-Brunswick) E1A 7R1
>
> Tel.: (506) 861 0955
>
> Fax: (506) 851 3630
>
> Stephen.Downes at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca <mailto:Stephen.Downes at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>____
>
> Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
>
> *From:*oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca 
> [mailto:oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca] *On Behalf Of *Ilkka Tuomi
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2012 4:28 AM
> *To:* oer-community
> *Subject:* Re: [Oer-community] On-line education is using a flawed 
> Creative Commons license
>
> A good conversation...
>
> Stephen, it may be useful to distinguish between "abstract" openness 
> and outcomes. Logically, CC-BY-NC is a subset of CC-BY. In this sense, 
> it is more restricted. You are mainly talking about outcomes, i.e., 
> whether the licensed resources will, or will not, be more or less 
> freely accessible to potential users. In practice, you have to make 
> quite a few assumptions about the actions of the different players, 
> which may or may not be empirically right. E.g.:
>
> "- 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"
>
> As has been pointed out in the discussion, CC-BY-NC allows commerical 
> players to negotiate a separate license. This is a private agreement 
> between the parties and can, for example, contain terms that exclude 
> other commercial actors from negotiating similar agreements.
>
> I think Wayne's point about MIT OCW was very interesting. From the 
> outcome point of view, the MIT OCW non-commercial restriction has lead 
> to much broader availability and use of the resources that could have 
> been possible without NC. More restricted can sometimes be better if 
> the objective is wide access.
>
> For the growth and maintenance of the resource, the situation can be 
> different. The point is that if you are interested in the outcomes, 
> you should focus on the empirical outcomes, for example, whether 
> different licenses lead to enclosures of not. You might even ask 
> whether enclosures are sometimes useful.
>
> I think Stallman's point about the difference between software and OER 
> content is relevant. In software, you adapt and redevelop functional 
> modules. You reuse implementations of ideas. That's why patents are 
> important for SW. In content, the issue is more about expression. The 
> author may be interested in preserving the integrity of the message. 
> That's why some countries have clearly separated moral rights from 
> (commercial) copyrights.
>
> Best
> ilkka
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121130/06a3144b/attachment.html