I think there are problems with Wikieducator's CC BY SA.
There maybe some times when our teachers here (at a Southern New Zealand Polytechnic) are involved in training and education for industry and commercial activities. Our teachers may be creating resources use commercially (or culturally) sensitive material, where the partners are not willing to release some of the material under a Creative Commons license. The Share Alike restriction therefore may prevent us from using AND contributing to Wikieducator.
Our Polytechnic has drafted a new IP policy that uses the CC BY license. Our policy is to default to that license unless a stakeholder indicates otherwise. (Rather than the default being All Rights Reserved unless a stakeholder indicates otherwise). Again, the SA restriction on Wikieducator may prevent us from using out CC BY license, as the SA requires us to re release under SA as well!
I don't know the background to Wikieducator using CC BY SA, but these are just two reasons that using this restriction may prevent participation in wikieducator by our organisation...
I would imagine that Wikieducator would want maximum flexibility with the use of its platform. What are the reasons for the use of the Share Alike restriction?
On 4/17/07, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
Licensing is a complex issue. The real issue with licensing concerns derivative works - you cannot revoke the original license, however it is possible to license a derivative work in some cases with other restrictions, as long as they don't conflict with the original terms of the license. For, example a derivative work on WikiEducator that is based on a CC-BY license can be licensed under CC-BY-SA as long as the attribution and other requirements of the license are met, for example a summary of the changes that have been made and a reference to the original work. The legal code requires: "reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work". The history log of a MW installation would keep track of every change.
In this case attribution must be in a manner specified by the copyright holder. Remember that the original version will always be available under CC-BY-SA. So the CC-BY does not restrict derivative works being released under CC-BY-SA as long as the license requirements in terms of attribution etc are met. I'm not a legal professional - so its always best to get legal advice on these matters if you're brave enough.
I've taken the following quote from the CC cite:
"Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work." (see http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ ).
Therefore the copyleft restriction is not an impediment to working with WikiEducator. It's more a question of whether the creator wants to protect the freedom of the resource by using a copyleft provision.
Moreover, we are about to embark on developing a licensing policy for WikiEducator where these issues can be addressed again by the community and it's quite reasonable to open up the CC-BY question again.
The value issue for WikiEducator community is that we will not accept any of the non-free CC licenses. Fortunately both the CC-BY and CC-BY- SA meet the requirements of the Free Cultural Works definition. (Folk may be interested in taking a look at our Free Content Tutorial - see: http://www.wikieducator.org/Wikieducator_tutorial/What_is_free_content ).
My personal preference is the CC-BY license as this license is "more free" than the CC-BY-SA. However, when we were taking the decision about license, the two main reasons underpinning our decision were:
1. A general reluctance from educators to release content under the more open CC-BY license. From our observations we felt that here were a larger number of educators who would be willing to release under CC- BY-SA rather than CC-BY; 2. Given the vast amount of content available under a copyleft license, we wanted to build on this eco-system. For example, if WikiEducator were using a CC-BY license - we could not build derivative works using CC-BY-SA and release these under CC-BY, unless we adopted a dual licensing model which is a nightmare to manage.
Therefore teachers who are creating resources that use commercially (or culturally) sensitive material under a CC-BY license - cannot restrict the materials in the way you envisage. There's an interesting feature of the CC-BY concerning royalties. The CC-BY license does not waive the rights of the original author to royalties in the case of derivative works where such royalties are earned by the derivative work.
Hope this helps a little and that I've not transgressed any major legal interpretations.
That kinda helps, but I may of missed a key response, so I'll go again if you don't mind.
- Us contributing works to Wikieducator is not a problem - as we use the CC BY. - Us using works from Wikieducator is a problem because it uses CC BY SA. If we were to use something from Wikieducator, we would have to release what we made of it under a CC BY SA license, and therefore complicating our over all default of CC BY. - In some instances we might want to use something from Wikieducator and mix it with content that has commercial or cultural restrictions. Those restrictions may preclude any use of a CC license what-so-ever. While attribution would of course be given to Wikieducator authors, SA may not be possible in these instances. Where we know this in advance would mean we would avoid using SA materials. What if we don't know this in advance? So we would only ever use CC BY materials. - Your personal preference for CC BY Wayne, is ours as well, for the same reasons you mention, as well as those I've outlined. However - we make provisions for individual IP holders to recall our organisational CC BY default and place restrictions on it where there is a need. Any source content that has restrictions beyond BY (such as SA) means we cannot use it because we cannot know what the use in the future may be.
> Licensing is a complex issue. The real issue with licensing concerns > derivative works - you cannot revoke the original license, however it > is possible to license a derivative work in some cases with other > restrictions, as long as they don't conflict with the original terms > of the license. For, example a derivative work on WikiEducator that is > based on a CC-BY license can be licensed under CC-BY-SA as long as the > attribution and other requirements of the license are met, for example > a summary of the changes that have been made and a reference to the > original work. The legal code requires: "reasonable steps to clearly > label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the > original Work". The history log of a MW installation would keep track > of every change.
> In this case attribution must be in a manner specified by the > copyright holder. Remember that the original version will always be > available under CC-BY-SA. So the CC-BY does not restrict derivative > works being released under CC-BY-SA as long as the license > requirements in terms of attribution etc are met. I'm not a legal > professional - so its always best to get legal advice on these matters > if you're brave enough.
> I've taken the following quote from the CC cite:
> "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you > cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative > Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You > can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at > any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work > that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, > be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or > adaptations of your work." (see http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ ).
> Therefore the copyleft restriction is not an impediment to working > with WikiEducator. It's more a question of whether the creator wants > to protect the freedom of the resource by using a copyleft provision.
> Moreover, we are about to embark on developing a licensing policy for > WikiEducator where these issues can be addressed again by the > community and it's quite reasonable to open up the CC-BY question > again.
> The value issue for WikiEducator community is that we will not accept > any of the non-free CC licenses. Fortunately both the CC-BY and CC-BY- > SA meet the requirements of the Free Cultural Works definition. (Folk > may be interested in taking a look at our Free Content Tutorial - > see: > http://www.wikieducator.org/Wikieducator_tutorial/What_is_free_content > ).
> My personal preference is the CC-BY license as this license is "more > free" than the CC-BY-SA. However, when we were taking the decision > about license, the two main reasons underpinning our decision were:
> 1. A general reluctance from educators to release content under the > more open CC-BY license. From our observations we felt that here were > a larger number of educators who would be willing to release under CC- > BY-SA rather than CC-BY; > 2. Given the vast amount of content available under a copyleft > license, we wanted to build on this eco-system. For example, if > WikiEducator were using a CC-BY license - we could not build > derivative works using CC-BY-SA and release these under CC-BY, unless > we adopted a dual licensing model which is a nightmare to manage.
> Therefore teachers who are creating resources that use commercially > (or culturally) sensitive material under a CC-BY license - cannot > restrict the materials in the way you envisage. There's an interesting > feature of the CC-BY concerning royalties. The CC-BY license does not > waive the rights of the original author to royalties in the case of > derivative works where such royalties are earned by the derivative > work.
> Hope this helps a little and that I've not transgressed any major > legal interpretations.
On 4/17/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, the SA restriction on Wikieducator > may prevent us from using out CC BY license, as the SA requires us to re > release under SA as well!
There is actually no reason why we should not loosen this policy a bit and allow both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA content on WikiEducator, and within the context of a page, use the pre-existing licensing. The default would continue to be CC-BY-SA.
As far as I know, incorporating CC-BY content into a CC-BY-SA work is possible as long as the CC-BY portion is still identified as such (for example, by having a footer at the bottom, "portions of this work come originally from .. licensed under .."). But it would be good to get solid legal opinion on that.
I think we need to avoid a further division of the free culture movement along copyleft vs. non-copyleft. Both can exist reasonably peacefully, and I've argued both sides of the debate on different occasions. Copyleft harms nobody who intends to contribute to the commons; it only harms those who want to add value without returning it. -- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
<< There is actually no reason why we should not loosen this policy a bit and allow both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA content on WikiEducator, and within the context of a page, use the pre-existing licensing. The default would continue to be CC-BY-SA. >>
MediaWiki supports multiple licensing. Wikipedia users can use templates to release all their contributions under a different license or into the public domain, and if all edits are under a less restrictive license, then so is that article. I do this, for example:
<< As far as I know, incorporating CC-BY content into a CC-BY-SA work is possible as long as the CC-BY portion is still identified as such (for example, by having a footer at the bottom, "portions of this work come originally from .. licensed under .."). But it would be good to get solid legal opinion on that. >>
I agree on the solid legal opinion, because I don't think that's necessary. My understanding is that one can do what one pleases with a work derived from a CC-BY work, so long as the original author is credited.
<< I think we need to avoid a further division of the free culture movement along copyleft vs. non-copyleft. Both can exist reasonably peacefully, and I've argued both sides of the debate on different occasions. Copyleft harms nobody who intends to contribute to the commons; it only harms those who want to add value without returning it. >>
Isn't it the competing copyleft provisions that keep us from mixing CC- BY-SA and GNU FDL materials?
> I think we need to avoid a further division of the free culture > movement along copyleft vs. non-copyleft. Both can exist reasonably > peacefully, and I've argued both sides of the debate on different > occasions. Copyleft harms nobody who intends to contribute to the > commons; it only harms those who want to add value without returning
It's not productive for the freedom culture to be arguing these finer points. As Erik points out there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.
I support the view that WikiEducator should loosen its current approach by accommodating both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. The timing is good because we need to develop a license policy for WikiEducator and I value this open discussion.
Leigh - you should get a legal opinion on the rights of IP holders to recall our organisational CC BY default and place restrictions on it where there is a need. Once a resource has be licensed under CC-BY to the best its my understanding that the license cannot be revoked. It would be possible for a teacher at the OP to develop a derivative work based on the CC work and use a license with more restrictions for the derivative work, as long as it doesn't conflict with the provisions of the original license.
Isn't it the competing copyleft provisions that keep us from mixing CC- BY-SA and GNU FDL materials?
Not really. From my perspective, SA is a restriction that prevents a number of uses and 'freedoms'. A bit like NC though not the same.
Mixing our content in with SA is NOT the problem. Using SA materials in our work (outside wikieducator is some instances) is. We may wish to re-release under CC BY (which as Eric says is not a problem). But in other instances we may not - such as when we have to restrict rights because a partner has commercial or cultural concerns with CC BY.
On 4/21/07, Steve Foerster <st...@freecurricula.org> wrote:
> << There is actually no reason why we should not loosen this policy a > bit and allow both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA content on WikiEducator, and > within the context of a page, use the pre-existing licensing. The > default would continue to be CC-BY-SA. >>
> MediaWiki supports multiple licensing. Wikipedia users can use > templates to release all their contributions under a different license > or into the public domain, and if all edits are under a less > restrictive license, then so is that article. I do this, for > example:
> << As far as I know, incorporating CC-BY content into a CC-BY-SA work > is possible as long as the CC-BY portion is still identified as such > (for example, by having a footer at the bottom, "portions of this work > come originally from .. licensed under .."). But it would be good to > get solid legal opinion on that. >>
> I agree on the solid legal opinion, because I don't think that's > necessary. My understanding is that one can do what one pleases with > a work derived from a CC-BY work, so long as the original author is > credited.
> << I think we need to avoid a further division of the free culture > movement along copyleft vs. non-copyleft. Both can exist reasonably > peacefully, and I've argued both sides of the debate on different > occasions. Copyleft harms nobody who intends to contribute to the > commons; it only harms those who want to add value without returning > it. >>
> Isn't it the competing copyleft provisions that keep us from mixing CC- > BY-SA and GNU FDL materials?
On 4/20/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not really. From my perspective, SA is a restriction that prevents a number > of uses and 'freedoms'. A bit like NC though not the same.
Which 'freedom' does the share-alike provision restrict? That seems like a weird way of looking at things. You want to combine material with resources that are under non-free licenses. That's an understandable requirement, but it is the people & institutions who refuse to make their resources freely available that are causing your problem in the first place.
Perhaps you can communicate to them the advantages of using a share-alike license, which protects the resources from exploitation and ensures that derivatives are building the commons. -- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
I think that we may be talking cross-purposes here.
You're right (and I agree) that copyleft adds an additional restriction to the resource. In many respects this respects that future freedoms of individuals who may wish to develop derivative works.
On the other hand, copyleft is about protecting the future freedom of the resource (rather than freedoms of the individual) by ensuring that derivative works are released back into the community. Some freedom advocates would argue that this is the way to ensure sustainability of free content.
To the best of my knowledge there are no legal restrictions to releasing a derivative work under a dual license. So the bits from WikiEducator CC-BY-SA would be clearly marked under that license.
Leigh, I'm not sure if I get the bit about restricting rights for commercial or cultural reasons.
Lets say OP as Chapters 1, 2, & 3 under CC-BY Corporate XYZ develops Chapter 4 under All rights reserved Coporate XYZ adds Subsection 1.6 in Chapter 1.
Prints this derivative work under all rights reserved adhering to the attribution requirements of CC-BY.
Chapters 1, 2 & 3 would still be accessible under CC-BY - but Subsection 1.6 and Chapter 4 are now released under full copyright.
Is this what you mean by restricting rights for commercial or cultural reasons?
On Apr 20, 1:06 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't it the competing copyleft provisions that keep us from mixing CC- > BY-SA and GNU FDL materials?
> Not really. From my perspective, SA is a restriction that prevents a number > of uses and 'freedoms'. A bit like NC though not the same.
> Mixing our content in with SA is NOT the problem. Using SA materials in our > work (outside wikieducator is some instances) is. We may wish to re-release > under CC BY (which as Eric says is not a problem). But in other instances we > may not - such as when we have to restrict rights because a partner has > commercial or cultural concerns with CC BY.
> On 4/21/07, Steve Foerster <s...@freecurricula.org> wrote:
> > Erik wrote:
> > << There is actually no reason why we should not loosen this policy a > > bit and allow both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA content on WikiEducator, and > > within the context of a page, use the pre-existing licensing. The > > default would continue to be CC-BY-SA. >>
> > MediaWiki supports multiple licensing. Wikipedia users can use > > templates to release all their contributions under a different license > > or into the public domain, and if all edits are under a less > > restrictive license, then so is that article. I do this, for > > example:
> > << As far as I know, incorporating CC-BY content into a CC-BY-SA work > > is possible as long as the CC-BY portion is still identified as such > > (for example, by having a footer at the bottom, "portions of this work > > come originally from .. licensed under .."). But it would be good to > > get solid legal opinion on that. >>
> > I agree on the solid legal opinion, because I don't think that's > > necessary. My understanding is that one can do what one pleases with > > a work derived from a CC-BY work, so long as the original author is > > credited.
> > << I think we need to avoid a further division of the free culture > > movement along copyleft vs. non-copyleft. Both can exist reasonably > > peacefully, and I've argued both sides of the debate on different > > occasions. Copyleft harms nobody who intends to contribute to the > > commons; it only harms those who want to add value without returning > > it. >>
> > Isn't it the competing copyleft provisions that keep us from mixing CC- > > BY-SA and GNU FDL materials?
On 4/20/07, Steve Foerster <st...@freecurricula.org> wrote:
> I agree on the solid legal opinion, because I don't think that's > necessary. My understanding is that one can do what one pleases with > a work derived from a CC-BY work, so long as the original author is > credited.
CC-BY-SA 3.0, section 4.a: "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform." http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode -- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CC-BY-SA 3.0, section 4.a: "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform > Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the > Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform." > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
I'm sorry, I meant of course CC-BY. -- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Wayne, your scenario is about right. I would add chapter 7 - produced by Maori reps who only want their own Iwi to see and use the material, so wish to reserve all rights on the derivatives. That's the cultural element. The re licencing would be easy if we are talking clear distinctions like chapter by chapter. Not so easy when we are talking a more complex mix. Pictures, with text, video and audio...
Regarding your earlier query regarding re-licensing. Once OP releases a work CC BY we would not revoke that license, nor could we - unless we made derivatives.
Eric, the freedom I talk of, is the freedom to make derivatives and reserve rights if need be.
I'm not sure why it is difficult to explain and understand this predicament. It may be that I am mistaken about something and I'm asking you to see a predicament that is simply not there! But in short it comes down to this:
We can't use SA restricted resources because we can't predict what situation we/resources will be in in the future.
I understand and appreciate the free content and copy left reasoning, and would always encourage such perspectives at my institution (hence the CC BY policy draft). But there are some situations - such as the commercial and cultural examples I use (which occur often at the moment), that may require rights to be reserved.
Your suggestions to support 2 licenses, and encouragement to re license works at an aggregate level are fare, but perhaps impractical? How can a wiki support 2 licenses? Will every edit have to record one of the two?
Regards, Leigh
On 4/21/07, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote: > > CC-BY-SA 3.0, section 4.a: "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform > > Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the > > Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform." > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
> I'm sorry, I meant of course CC-BY. > -- > Peace & Love, > Erik
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of > the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, > free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
On 4/22/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eric, the freedom I talk of, is the freedom to make derivatives and reserve > rights if need be.
Copyright law is designed to monopolize that freedom, to give a single entity the rights to control how a work can be used. Copyleft reverses that principle: it gives everyone the fundamental rights to the work, but creates a new balance between specific and common interests in its development.
It's a brilliant but complex principle. It's brilliant because unlike other restrictions designed to prevent exploitation, it focuses strictly on the outcome of any particular transaction related to the work. It does not matter if you are a company, a university, or a private person; it is irrelevant where you live and how much disposable income you have. The only thing that's of importance is: do you play by the rules of the commons? Copyleft is complex because of its high level of abstraction and generic applicability; restrictions like "NC" appeal to predominant cultural attitudes. But it is their very specificity which places them in the realm of arbitrary, "non-free" restrictions we should leave behind.
Fortunately, this leaves us with a reasonably simple ethical and legal framework: Our system of rules allows, essentially, for two types of key licensing provisions: those which recognize authors (attribution), and those which serve the long term development of the work (copyleft). We should fully investigate the degree of mixing between these licensing types which is permissible. As I understand it, the following are all legally safe choices:
1) A resource under CC-BY is imported into WikiEducator. It is identified as such by adding a template. Users make changes to this resource using standard CC-BY-SA licensing. The entire modified resource is CC-BY-SA licensed, though the materials which were originally CC-BY forever remain so (if they have not been modified, or one retrieves the original version of the resource from the page history).
2) A user chooses to "dual-license" their contributions with the CC-BY license. As long as the user does not modify an existing CC-BY-SA resource, the resulting resources are fully CC-BY (they can be used under CC-BY-SA as well). Otherwise they are implicitly treated as CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia uses plenty of these multi-licensing templates for users:
3) Every sub-project within WikiEducator can choose its licensing to be either CC-BY-SA or CC-BY. CC-BY resources have to be tagged with templates, or by putting them in a namespace and implementing a mini-extension that adds a notice to all pages in a namespace.
I have some concerns regarding 2) when it comes to the license notice required by CC-BY which I cited in this thread, but this is less of a problem when copyright holder and contributor are identical. I think 3) may be a good idea as the preference of copyleft or attribution-only licenses is often project-specific. -- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
I think 3 is a potentially workable suggestion. A person who starts a page can choose CC BY or a CC BY SA page template. Not sure how we make sure that all the content used in that page remains CC BY so that the page as a whole remains CC BY SA, but it at least makes it possible for CC BY content to be distributed on Wikieducator. If their is CC BY content that I can search for, then there is content on Wikieducator that I can feel more confident in using in different contexts. Wayne, can you facilitate a web conference on this issue? I feel that I would be able to explain my concerns better in voice, and the resolution affects my work on the learning4content contract
On 4/23/07, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/22/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Eric, the freedom I talk of, is the freedom to make derivatives and > reserve > > rights if need be.
> Copyright law is designed to monopolize that freedom, to give a single > entity the rights to control how a work can be used. Copyleft reverses > that principle: it gives everyone the fundamental rights to the work, > but creates a new balance between specific and common interests in its > development.
> It's a brilliant but complex principle. It's brilliant because unlike > other restrictions designed to prevent exploitation, it focuses > strictly on the outcome of any particular transaction related to the > work. It does not matter if you are a company, a university, or a > private person; it is irrelevant where you live and how much > disposable income you have. The only thing that's of importance is: do > you play by the rules of the commons? Copyleft is complex because of > its high level of abstraction and generic applicability; restrictions > like "NC" appeal to predominant cultural attitudes. But it is their > very specificity which places them in the realm of arbitrary, > "non-free" restrictions we should leave behind.
> Fortunately, this leaves us with a reasonably simple ethical and legal > framework: Our system of rules allows, essentially, for two types of > key licensing provisions: those which recognize authors (attribution), > and those which serve the long term development of the work > (copyleft). We should fully investigate the degree of mixing between > these licensing types which is permissible. As I understand it, the > following are all legally safe choices:
> 1) A resource under CC-BY is imported into WikiEducator. It is > identified as such by adding a template. Users make changes to this > resource using standard CC-BY-SA licensing. The entire modified > resource is CC-BY-SA licensed, though the materials which were > originally CC-BY forever remain so (if they have not been modified, or > one retrieves the original version of the resource from the page > history).
> 2) A user chooses to "dual-license" their contributions with the CC-BY > license. As long as the user does not modify an existing CC-BY-SA > resource, the resulting resources are fully CC-BY (they can be used > under CC-BY-SA as well). Otherwise they are implicitly treated as > CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia uses plenty of these multi-licensing templates for > users:
> 3) Every sub-project within WikiEducator can choose its licensing to > be either CC-BY-SA or CC-BY. CC-BY resources have to be tagged with > templates, or by putting them in a namespace and implementing a > mini-extension that adds a notice to all pages in a namespace.
> I have some concerns regarding 2) when it comes to the license notice > required by CC-BY which I cited in this thread, but this is less of a > problem when copyright holder and contributor are identical. I think > 3) may be a good idea as the preference of copyleft or > attribution-only licenses is often project-specific. > -- > Peace & Love, > Erik
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of > the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, > free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
> I think 3 is a potentially workable suggestion. > A person who starts a page can choose CC BY or a CC BY SA page template. > Not sure how we make sure that all the content used in that page remains CC > BY so that the page as a whole remains CC BY SA, but it at least makes it > possible for CC BY content to be distributed on Wikieducator. If their is CC > BY content that I can search for, then there is content on Wikieducator that > I can feel more confident in using in different contexts. > Wayne, can you facilitate a web conference on this issue? I feel that I > would be able to explain my concerns better in voice, and the resolution > affects my work on the learning4content contract
> On 4/23/07, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/22/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Eric, the freedom I talk of, is the freedom to make derivatives and > > reserve > > > rights if need be.
> > Copyright law is designed to monopolize that freedom, to give a single > > entity the rights to control how a work can be used. Copyleft reverses > > that principle: it gives everyone the fundamental rights to the work, > > but creates a new balance between specific and common interests in its > > development.
> > It's a brilliant but complex principle. It's brilliant because unlike > > other restrictions designed to prevent exploitation, it focuses > > strictly on the outcome of any particular transaction related to the > > work. It does not matter if you are a company, a university, or a > > private person; it is irrelevant where you live and how much > > disposable income you have. The only thing that's of importance is: do > > you play by the rules of the commons? Copyleft is complex because of > > its high level of abstraction and generic applicability; restrictions > > like "NC" appeal to predominant cultural attitudes. But it is their > > very specificity which places them in the realm of arbitrary, > > "non-free" restrictions we should leave behind.
> > Fortunately, this leaves us with a reasonably simple ethical and legal > > framework: Our system of rules allows, essentially, for two types of > > key licensing provisions: those which recognize authors (attribution), > > and those which serve the long term development of the work > > (copyleft). We should fully investigate the degree of mixing between > > these licensing types which is permissible. As I understand it, the > > following are all legally safe choices:
> > 1) A resource under CC-BY is imported into WikiEducator. It is > > identified as such by adding a template. Users make changes to this > > resource using standard CC-BY-SA licensing. The entire modified > > resource is CC-BY-SA licensed, though the materials which were > > originally CC-BY forever remain so (if they have not been modified, or > > one retrieves the original version of the resource from the page > > history).
> > 2) A user chooses to "dual-license" their contributions with the CC-BY > > license. As long as the user does not modify an existing CC-BY-SA > > resource, the resulting resources are fully CC-BY (they can be used > > under CC-BY-SA as well). Otherwise they are implicitly treated as > > CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia uses plenty of these multi-licensing templates for > > users:
> > 3) Every sub-project within WikiEducator can choose its licensing to > > be either CC-BY-SA or CC-BY. CC-BY resources have to be tagged with > > templates, or by putting them in a namespace and implementing a > > mini-extension that adds a notice to all pages in a namespace.
> > I have some concerns regarding 2) when it comes to the license notice > > required by CC-BY which I cited in this thread, but this is less of a > > problem when copyright holder and contributor are identical. I think > > 3) may be a good idea as the preference of copyleft or > > attribution-only licenses is often project-specific. > > -- > > Peace & Love, > > Erik
> > DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of > > the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> > "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, > > free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
On 4/23/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think 3 is a potentially workable suggestion. > A person who starts a page can choose CC BY or a CC BY SA page template.
I'd rather avoid handling this on the page-level; this is where namespaces come in handy. A namespace is the prefix of the type "User:", "Template:" and so forth; we can potentially define these for projects.
One wiki which actually already does this on the namespace level is MediaWiki itself. On the mediawiki.org site, the Help: namespace requires that contributions are in the public domain, to ensure that the user manual can be used in any wiki, regardless of its licensing. They do it by means of a template _and_ a namespace-specific design (in this case, a "no copyright" watermark); I think we only need either of these approaches. See:
Even better :) accept for when individuals create a single page and are not at first aware of this structural suggestion. ie.. me. Is it out of the question for Wikieducator to consider a default of CC BY and then an option for CC BY SA for those who believe it is necessary? Such as more finished works etc.
On 4/23/07, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think 3 is a potentially workable suggestion. > > A person who starts a page can choose CC BY or a CC BY SA page template.
> I'd rather avoid handling this on the page-level; this is where > namespaces come in handy. A namespace is the prefix of the type > "User:", "Template:" and so forth; we can potentially define these for > projects.
> One wiki which actually already does this on the namespace level is > MediaWiki itself. On the mediawiki.org site, the Help: namespace > requires that contributions are in the public domain, to ensure that > the user manual can be used in any wiki, regardless of its licensing. > They do it by means of a template _and_ a namespace-specific design > (in this case, a "no copyright" watermark); I think we only need > either of these approaches. See:
On 4/23/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it out of the question for Wikieducator to consider a default of CC BY > and then an option for CC BY SA for those who believe it is necessary? Such > as more finished works etc.
If we look at WikiEducator as essentially a combination of initiatives (which is exactly what it is right now), then each of these initiatives can make that decision on its own. For the broader community work that exists outside specific initiatives, I would not mind more permissive licensing -- my experience is that wiki editors accept whatever licensing the wiki administrators have made the default. But that would be a decision for the Interim Advisory Board to make. I tend to put my own works in the public domain, for what it's worth -- but that is not very legally safe for a number of reasons.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Now public domain is something I would also like to do.. but the best I can get my bosses to consider is CC BY.
So, to the Interim Advisory Board for Wikieducator...
The suggestion is to use CC BY as the initial default license for Wikieducator content, with the options for alternative CC license templates to be applied to specific initiatives.
As Eric points out, most people's motivations for participation and use won't change one bit. But institutionally this change would be significant I believe, and help to foster more official participation from Educational organisations.
On 4/23/07, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is it out of the question for Wikieducator to consider a default of CC > BY > > and then an option for CC BY SA for those who believe it is necessary? > Such > > as more finished works etc.
> If we look at WikiEducator as essentially a combination of initiatives > (which is exactly what it is right now), then each of these > initiatives can make that decision on its own. For the broader > community work that exists outside specific initiatives, I would not > mind more permissive licensing -- my experience is that wiki editors > accept whatever licensing the wiki administrators have made the > default. But that would be a decision for the Interim Advisory Board > to make. I tend to put my own works in the public domain, for what > it's worth -- but that is not very legally safe for a number of > reasons.
> -- > Peace & Love, > Erik
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of > the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, > free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
<< So, to the Interim Advisory Board for Wikieducator... The suggestion is to use CC BY as the initial default license for Wikieducator content, with the options for alternative CC license templates to be applied to specific initiatives. As Eric points out, most people's motivations for participation and use won't change one bit. But institutionally this change would be significant I believe, and help to foster more official participation from Educational organisations. >>
For starters, I'm a dual-licensor on Wikipedia (public domain), so sure, I'd love to see that functionality included in WikiEducator as well. (If nothing else, it lets people make pro-freedom statements, never a bad thing.)
I'm also particularly delighted by the idea of letting projects decide on using BY-SA, BY, or public domain as it meets their needs. With any of those, the material produced would be compatible with CC-BY-SA, which has been our mandate. For example, the point of the XXI Texts project is to take materials from the public domain and update them. It seems reasonable to return those updates into the public domain as well.
Erik said he'd prefer to do this on the namespace level. If I'm correctly seeing the Help: example he pointed out, does that mean each project would use its own namespace, so things would work like this:
On 4/23/07, Steve Foerster <st...@freecurricula.org> wrote:
> Erik said he'd prefer to do this on the namespace level. If I'm > correctly seeing the Help: example he pointed out, does that mean each > project would use its own namespace, so things would work like this:
At least any project that wishes to change from the default license. I would try to define projects very broadly here, e.g. "VUSSC:" instead of "Tourism:".
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
> As far as changing WikiEducator's default license, as exciting as that > might be to me in a personal capacity, it raises a few difficult > issues:
> 1. What about existing pages, which are already CC-BY-SA?
Couldn't they remain CC BY SA? But any new pages (or spaces) that are created will have the default of CC BY, with options to manually set them to BY SA or Public Domain before creation.
2. What about the opinion of COL, which was convinced to move forward
> with CC-BY-SA in the first place, evidently not without controversy?
I saw no history of this controversy... sorry, is there a pointer to the discussion? Did it take place on this list?
On 4/24/07, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/07, Steve Foerster <st...@freecurricula.org> wrote: > > Erik said he'd prefer to do this on the namespace level. If I'm > > correctly seeing the Help: example he pointed out, does that mean each > > project would use its own namespace, so things would work like this:
> At least any project that wishes to change from the default license. I > would try to define projects very broadly here, e.g. "VUSSC:" instead > of "Tourism:".
> -- > Peace & Love, > Erik
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of > the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, > free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
This is an excellent discussion. An awesome read!!! Could I make a suggestion, we record a skypecast based on this discussion. I could review this thread and come up with some high level questions to lead / facilitate a discussion. We have the discussion over skype and one (or all) of us record the session. Then we post it to WikiEducator... It could be a great way to bring clarity and to archive this important topic in a way that would reduce reading and open up the audience (and we could post it as a plain old podcast to somewhere like odeo)... If I can get all of you (Leigh, Wayne, Erik & Steve) to commit, I will put together a set of prompt questions. After we have them reviewed by the four of you, we set up the skype session and off we go...
> This is an excellent discussion. An awesome read!!! Could I make a > suggestion, we record a skypecast based on this discussion. I could > review this thread and come up with some high level questions to > lead / facilitate a discussion. We have the discussion over skype and > one (or all) of us record the session. Then we post it to > WikiEducator... It could be a great way to bring clarity and to > archive this important topic in a way that would reduce reading and > open up the audience (and we could post it as a plain old podcast to > somewhere like odeo)... If I can get all of you (Leigh, Wayne, Erik & > Steve) to commit, I will put together a set of prompt questions. After > we have them reviewed by the four of you, we set up the skype session > and off we go...
> I said I would set one up in about 4-5 hours from now... can you be there > Peter? Can you record it? And yes!! can you prompt with questions!!?
> On 4/25/07, Peter <prawstho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wow,
> > This is an excellent discussion. An awesome read!!! Could I make a > > suggestion, we record a skypecast based on this discussion. I could > > review this thread and come up with some high level questions to > > lead / facilitate a discussion. We have the discussion over skype and > > one (or all) of us record the session. Then we post it to > > WikiEducator... It could be a great way to bring clarity and to > > archive this important topic in a way that would reduce reading and > > open up the audience (and we could post it as a plain old podcast to > > somewhere like odeo)... If I can get all of you (Leigh, Wayne, Erik & > > Steve) to commit, I will put together a set of prompt questions. After > > we have them reviewed by the four of you, we set up the skype session > > and off we go...
|
