License for learning material

[Martin Stadler]

Hi!

This morning we were discussing about how to license OpenTechSchool learning material. I think this should be an open discussion and a transparent decision so would be great to get some opinions. Here are some thoughts we had:

 * Creative Commons is probably the way to go

 * Commercial or non-commercial? If we go for a license that allows commercial use, we need to make sure that every author or contributor is aware of that. Some people might not like the idea that others can make money with their work.

 * Maybe establish the rule that every official OTS material (defined by being in our Github?) has to have this license, taken care of by everyone with commit rights.

 * Do we even need to touch topics like CLAs?

 * Solution must be simple in the spirit of OTS making it easy for everyone to get involved.

Looking forward to a constructive discussion.

Martin

[Steven Farlie]

After spending too much time dealing with licensing in the open source world, I'd prefer the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0. It's the minimal license to guarantee the work remains open and give credit where it is due.

I feel the Non-Commercial option is far too vague and ineffective, and perhaps even the Stockholm events would not have been allowed by it. Lessig gives a fair overview here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5719

-- 

Steven

Martin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenTechSchool Discussions (Global)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to discuss.globa...@opentechschool.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/opentechschool.org/group/discuss.global/?hl=en.
 
 

[Iwan Gabovitch]

Hi,

I'm a bystander, who is slowly trying to find people to lead a "game programming for beginners" course with OTS. I'm involved with some open source computer game projects, where licenses for graphics, sounds and text are often discussed. Perhaps I can help you make an informed decision about what terms you want for your material. I'll outline some basic information about the CC licenses:

There are currently 6 licenses supported by the Creative Commons organization[1].

Two of them prohibit changes (NoDerivs, ND) which seems unusable for OTS, because this makes it impossible to improve course material.

Two of the remaining prohibit commercial use (NonCommercial, NC) which seems unusable for OTS because it would make it unclear whether donations/funding can ever be used to support (the use of) NC course material.

The remaining usable licenses (Attribution, BY [2] and Attribution-ShareAlike, BY-SA [3]) both require attribution and a change log (who made what change when).

BY-SA in addition requires, that changed versions have to be licensed under the same license. This principle is often called "copyleft".

Wikipedia and related projects use Attribution-ShareAlike (BY-SA).

[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

[2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

[3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I recommend to only allow one license, to make the licensing step simpler for teachers, rather than allowing them to pick one.

Cheers,

Iwan

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Martin Stadler <mar...@opentechschool.org> wrote:

Martin

[Stefan Hoth [OTS]]

Hello everyone,

after reading all this I'd vote for BY-SA license because "sharing is caring".

Other votes?

- Stefan

[Kristian Rother]

Hi,

for me the licensing issue is crucial: I'm conducting commercial
trainings on a regular basis. Any license that excludes commercial use
would force me to keep OTS materials separate from my pile of favorite
exercises.

So whenever I spend time on improving Python material, I'd have to
decide whether to support my own business or OTS. Guess how you would
react before long in that situation.

Therefore I think the CC-share-alike license is essential.

Best regards,
Kristian

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

> Groups "Python Coaches" group.
> To post to this group, send email to coaches...@opentechschool.org.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> coaches.pytho...@opentechschool.org.
>
>


--

name : Dr. Kristian Rother
profile : science trainer
e-mail : kro...@academis.eu
phone : +49 176 3052 4691
web : www.academis.eu

Create better science.

[Benjamin Kampmann]

Hi,

I agree that Attribution-ShareAlike is probably the most suited. Also given the fact that we've been approached by other companies that do training professionally and are interested to review and ultimately release their material with us. Having a licence as non-commercials, especially as vague as that one, limits us and our possibilities imho.

Greets

bn

On 1 November 2012 14:30, Kristian Rother <kro...@rubor.de> wrote:

Hi,

for me the licensing issue is crucial: I'm conducting commercial trainings on a regular basis. Any license that excludes commercial use would force me to keep OTS materials separate from my pile of favorite exercises.

So whenever I spend time on improving Python material, I'd have to decide whether to support my own business or OTS. Guess how you would react before long in that situation.

Therefore I think the CC-share-alike license is essential.

Best regards,
     Kristian



Am 01/11/2012 12:26, schrieb Martin Stadler:

Hi!

This morning we were discussing about how to license OpenTechSchool learning material. I think this should be an open discussion and a transparent decision so would be great to get some opinions. Here are some thoughts we had:

 * Creative Commons is probably the way to go

 * Commercial or non-commercial? If we go for a license that allows commercial use, we need to make sure that every author or contributor is aware of that. Some people might not like the idea that others can make money with their work.

 * Maybe establish the rule that every official OTS material (defined by being in our Github?) has to have this license, taken care of by everyone with commit rights.

 * Do we even need to touch topics like CLAs?

 * Solution must be simple in the spirit of OTS making it easy for everyone to get involved.

Looking forward to a constructive discussion.
Martin

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Python Coaches" group.

To post to this group, send email to coaches.python@opentechschool.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coaches.python+unsubscribe@opentechschool.org.

--

name    : Dr. Kristian Rother
profile : science trainer
e-mail  : kro...@academis.eu
phone   : +49 176 3052 4691
web     : www.academis.eu

Create better science.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Python Coaches" group.

To post to this group, send email to coaches.python@opentechschool.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coaches.python+unsubscribe@opentechschool.org.

[Benjamin Kampmann]

Hello everyone,

as of this morning the discussion was opened under which licence we should best release curriculums and other OTS materials. Quickly we reached the conclusion, that CreativeCommons seems to be most suitable for our aims. But as there are multiple versions of it (Attribution, Share-Alike, Non-Commercial), we decided to open a poll about which one to choose. Please vote with a simple click here:

http://doodle.com/wd4h7a7vkwd6kvey#table

Greetings

Ben

[☮ elf Pavlik ☮]

Excerpts from Martin Stadler's message of 2012-11-01 11:26:52 +0000:

Haven't read all the answers but this page might help:
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/

[Nicole Simon]

A note:

A cc licence is just a per se license, not the only ever doable thing with it.

Think flickr: you can have a cc non commercial use licence while

at the same time offering commercial licencing f.e. through getty

images.

Like others, I am doing commercial trainings and in this regard would

not give away extended  material on a pure 'commercial usable' license

when this in fact is my income. In this regard you will need to decide

what kind of system you want to have, f.e. all classes documented and

updated on a Attribution-ShareAlike licence by volunteers all the time.

This also might collide with existing contracts and others, 

preventing people from using material they already have

to use in this when this is a mandatory commercial usage 

license. 

I assume that stockholm is referenced as having donations

for the event? that is not a commercial use of the material.

Please note also that while CC is great, there are different

issues with usage rights depending on where something is

release, by german law for example I cannot give up my

copyright and always have the right to repel any use

of my material as a creator - no matter what the licence

i tried to give with cc.

Summary: I would not dismiss a non commercial option

for the general material. Once somebody approaches

you for commercial use, you can always go back

to the creator and discuss further options.

Take it the other way round: You make good materials

and release it as just Attribution-ShareAlike, I can

take those and make commercial training out

of that without the need to give anything back.

I am painting a black and white picture here, the solution

is not that of course, but this is not a quick simple 

decision. :)

ciao
Nicole Simon

--
(email preferred) in...@nicole-simon.eu / skype:nicole.simon
phone: +030-459-77400 / mobile: +49 179 499 7076
http://nicole-simon.eu / http://twitter.com/NicoleSimon

I mostly 'blog' on google ...
https://plus.google.com/u/0/104147032621576433590/posts

--

[Benjamin Kampmann]

Hey everyone,

just to make this clear: the OpenTechSchool Learners and all other Materials will be published under Creative Commons Attribute ShareAlike Licence 3.0 as decided by the public voting (see attached screenshot of the doodle).

Thanks for your thoughts, inputs, feedback and participating in the Vote. 

Take care

Ben

[Martin Stadler]

Thanks Ben for wrapping that up which I promised to do a while ago.

[Benjamin Kampmann]

Needed it for the new website.

You are welcome :)

Bn