Headache in Creative Commons
Leigh Blackall
Wikieducator uses CC BY SA
I dunno about you all, but I don't use any content with restrictions beyond CC BY
Share Alike (SA) places a restriction that says: "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license."
For me and my place of work, we can't be sure what we might need to use content for in the future.
- We may enter into a training agreement with a company where we have to mix our training content with theirs and they do not want to use a CC license on the derivative.
- We may be in a relationship with a local Maori Iwi who are restrictive on the reuse of their cultural artifacts or local knowledge.
- We may need to mix sourced SA material with older material that we do not have release to distribute online or outside our own institution...
What a predicament!!
On the one hand I can happily contribute content into the Wiki, but on the other hand I can't take from it.
I really want to see the success of an open educational resource like wikieducator, but believe that their choice to use the SA restriction will prevent participation and full use. Perhaps this level of detail as to the copyrights assigned to wikieducator resources doesn't really matter in real practical terms. Who's gunna chase down anyone who breaches the license, and is there even a teacher or student on this planet that understands and respects copyright?
Wikieducator's reasoning seems to be the wish to protect open educational resources becoming closed, and to promote the growth of educational resources. But I think my argument neutralises both those positions.
What do others think?
--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
Bronwyn Hegarty
I don't have any beef with a CC BY SA as I think it helps to ensure that people don't take work and slap an all rights reserved C on it. I do see your point though Leigh where we are working with others who have more restrictive licensing. CC by SA does promote the use of CC licensing - could this help us to be more persuasive to get others we are working with to see the value of using CC licensing. my view is why should side in a collaborative partnership have the power to be more restrictive in their rights for sharing and insist on all rights reserved when they have had the benefits of using information provided by others.
On the other hand I'm sure that in the case of the examples you have provided leigh, and others we may not have thought about, COL would be open to discussion about how a suitable licence to keep both parties happy could be assigned.
Maybe I'm missing the idea completely here, but to my way of thinking If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license." - this helps the CC case for sharing a lot.
Bron
Leigh Blackall
Personally I don't have a problem with people taking a resource and "slapping" a big fat dirty C on it. So long as the attribute the original. Wikieducator have proposed support for the dual licenses of CC BY and CC BY SA. But how can that be practical? Its a wiki! Will every editor have to indicate their preferred license!? Will every user have to some how distinguish which little piece of content was under what license.
CC BY simplifies it all, makes more things possible, but does allow big dirty C to happen (with attribution). A small price to pay theoretically in the face of vastly more reusable resources don't you think?
Shaggy
lol - this same argument occurred in the open source software space
during the 1990s around the BSD vs. GPL issue. Sad to say, nobody
'won' that debate either...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_and_copyleft_licences
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/23/1313224.shtml
for what it's worth Leigh, I'm in the BSD camp with you.
alexanderhayes
supporting by-SA although I can see your point.....it dosent
neutralise it.........just brings other things more political into
play.
".......is there even a teacher or student on this planet that
understands and respects copyright? " Does anyone ?
Meanwhile back at home here in the land snowed-unda others vote with
their feet - http://www.groups.edna.edu.au/mod/forum/post.php?reply=39251
and the no assholes rule comes into effect - http://www.nswlearnscope.com/the-no-jerks-rule
I hope that you clear up the issue quick smart otherwise I'll be
yanking out the FLNW2 page - just in case I want to allow others to
build something with this idea....oh shit.......how do you delete the
history again ? :-)
Free as in freedom just keeps on looking grander hey !
On Apr 23, 8:42 am, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You guys!
>
> Wikieducator uses CC BY SA <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
> I dunno about you all, but I don't use any content with restrictions beyond CC
> BY <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/>
>
> Share Alike (SA) places a restriction that says: "If you alter, transform,
> or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under
> the same, similar or a compatible license."
>
> For me and my place of work, we can't be sure what we might need to use
> content for in the future.
>
> - We may enter into a training agreement with a company where we have
> to mix our training content with theirs and they do not want to use a CC
> license on the derivative.
> - We may be in a relationship with a local Maori Iwi who are
> restrictive on the reuse of their cultural artifacts or local knowledge.
> - We may need to mix sourced SA material with older material that we
Janet Hawtin
gpl only requires you to share alike if you are redistributing,
otherwise the way you mix and reuse it is up to you.
as i see it by-sa isnt explicit about when sa applies so it comes into
effect when you use, mod or remix something as well as when you
distribute it.
i have recently had my gpl cardgame remixed into a project where
someone used other materials which are cc nc licensed.
as far as i can see the project is part of the person's working
activities, they are redistributing it, and have asked me what i
think.
its tricky, i am happy for the work to be used, i am sad that they are
applying a restriction to the work because i made it freely and my
whole intent is that the sustainable freedom is the value of the work
for me and others.
i also wonder if the nc applies when people are using it for their
work or if there is some other description of when nc is and isnt
applicable.
i guess we dont hit these questions when we dont share.
and that it is a part of the journey to figure out what is most
important to us in each case.
for me gpl and sa are important because i give things to the community
with the intent that not just the first gen of users are able to use
it freely.
that is what commons means to me, i get more of a headache when people
call a licence which permits no derivatives or participation a commons licence.
that hurts my head. =)
these things are all about where we start, what we value, and which
systems/technologies/laws/communities/economic models we are
interfacing with.
i am interested in finding examples of people sharing material without
restriction in a gpl kind of way and also generating income or value
around that work.
for me business models which are not based on restriction is the kind
of research which will help us to build a real commons.
janet
Barbara Dieu
understands and respects copyright? " Does anyone ?
Leigh Blackall
gpl only requires you to share alike if you are redistributing,
otherwise the way you mix and reuse it is up to you.
Over at the Wikieducator list, the resolution seems to be this:
The default license will be CC BY, but with an option for users to apply a CC BY SA over a resource if they wish.
I still see no real need for SA when it comes to educational content. I understand the reasoning for it when it comes to software and code. But I'll be happy that the default be CC BY so at least there is a good potential for a base of freely reusable content to develop. As I said to Wikieducator, our institution would likely not use any SA material at all becuase we don't know what the future uses will be. If Wikied was SA only, then count us out. Which would be a real shame.
Alex - on the one hand you say you are for CC BY SA, but then say you would yank the FLNW2 page.. kinda too late for that anyway, but why would you yank it if it is already BY SA? Are you saying you would yank it if it went CC BY?
Janet Hawtin
> Janet said:
>
> > gpl only requires you to share alike if you are redistributing,
> > otherwise the way you mix and reuse it is up to you.
> >
>
> But in teaching, redistribution is implicit in the job.
redistribution is defined in gpl as being beyond an org scope.
so you can share within an organsiation.
again i dont know how sa scopes its distribution and use.
and remember the only thing you have to do if you publish the work is
provide the same freedom that you were provided with.
you can profit you can have a share of attribution related to your contribution
it just means that the business model and economics around the work is
not dependent on restriction of access.
some schools in the usa ask their students to sign NDA non disclosure
agreements to protect the intellectual property of the teacher/school
so that students may not tutor each other with knowedge or learning
processes they have learned within a school. i do not see how
restriction as a chosen means of profit is a good fit for education.
teaching is a service which can operate as a business model
independent on reliance of restriction of ionformation for its
business model.
yes the wider world is wedded somewhat to using restriction as a
gateway to profit and information but surely in this sector at least
that should feel incongruous.
Cheers
Janet
Leigh Blackall
Janet Hawtin
OK as shaggy points out this is probably a conversation which will not
resolve tidily.
Here are just some thoughts.
> See my previous examples as to why this sector may need to restrict access.
I went back in the thread and found:
> CC BY simplifies it all, makes more things possible, but does allow big dirty C to happen (with attribution). A small price to pay theoretically in the face of vastly more reusable resources don't you think?
The only thing it makes possible is the big dirty C
The vastly more reusable-ness of the big dirty C is for only the
person who slaps it on not for anyone else downstream. If we are
educators interested in participation generating materials which
enable downstream participation is part of constructivist connectivist
knowledge ness?
> Personally I don't have a problem with people taking a resource and "slapping" a big fat dirty C on it. So long as the attribute the original.
My bottom line is not attribution, I figure that will wash off or fade
in a few iterations or generations, what I care for is the idea that
our culture will have research, policy, curriculum, memes and games
and stories that will be read write long term.
This means we have to let go of the idea that we are the publishers
and that others do not need the same kind of access or level of
participation.
the big dirty C means I am truth you are a subscriber to my truth.
imho I am hoping that we can see other ways to work which are more about
we both bring good things to this conversation, a student might have
technology skills, a teacher might have content and pedagogy skills,
both have something to offer and something to learn and there is no
shame in the exchange. Resulting works and conversations need to be
something which again encourage that kind of respect for all
participants otherwise each restriction re establishes who's truth is
useful in an educational context. The broadcast business model is not
constructivist. It scopes who we can be.
If we want students to think outside the box it is probably useful to
make the box permeable or even to do away with it altogether?
It would be lovely to see education folk who are interested in
readwrite or who teach in collaborative ways to look at how these
ideas shape their work and their students experiences and to talk
about it. I think this is one of those nuts that needs to either be
cracked or flowed around. I do think these choices define us and those
who connect and learn with us.
Janet
rgrozdanic
i suggest you three/five have a skypecast on the issue that you then turn into a podcast and then people like me (who are interested but at the periphery) can listen in context and learn enough about the issues to form an opinion/do something about it.
adieu
r
Janet Hawtin
> d'ya know what peeps? my eyes are going wonky trying to read all this and
> memorise who said what let alone remember the acronyms etc
> i suggest you three/five have a skypecast on the issue that you then turn
> into a podcast and then people like me (who are interested but at the
> periphery) can listen in context and learn enough about the issues to form
> an opinion/do something about it.
>
> adieu
>
> r
fair call copyright does that. cheers j
Leigh Blackall
Janet,
You went back through the thread and didn't refer the thing I hoped you would - the thing that started this whole discussion, the reasons why SA does not work!
I'll say them again, though it is frustrating for me as I have had to say them over and over in both forums and keep getting almost fundamentalist responses of non negotiable idealism on the way to grow free culture (and that's saying something coming from me!!) Before I repeat them - I completely share the dream of developing free culture, and hope that some day we will have a strong free culture (in many ways we already do) but the reasons I originally outlinesd as to why SA does not work still stand, and so I think that SA actually harms the development of free culture.
Share Alike (SA) does not work in education because:
1. Our tertiary and vocational education institution is sometimes in a training partnership with a business or industry that may require us to mix learning content with commercially sensitive content (such as blue prints to machinery, patented product designs, or anything that the partner still perceives is necessary to remain restricted in access and copy). If we were to mix any SA content with the partner's content and redistribute (even on a small scale) we would be expected by the SA content provider to re-release the derivative under the SA license, but the partner would understandably not want to do this because they percieve (rightly or wrongly) that doing so would result in a loss of income and competative advantage. Result? We will not mix SA content. To keep things simple, we will use SA content at all because we will never be able to tell at what point we may find ourselves in this position.
2. Our tertiary and vocational education institution works with a local Maori Iwi (clan) named Ngi Tahu. At times we may be working with culturally sensitive materials that the Ngi Tahu leaders prefer to restrict access and copyrights to only Ngi Tahu people. We may wish to mix materials in with that, but cannot re-release under SA because of the wishes of Ngi Tahu. Replace the Ngi Tahu example with any minority and culturally sensative group or individual and (rightly or wrongly doesn't matter) we have the same situation. SA is not usable.
3. We have a large database of materials created long before CC or copyleft existed. Photographs, video and audio of people demonstrating things. These people signed release forms for using their image and recording for specific purposes, and the release did not mention anything about the right for a 3rd party to remix. We can't mix SA content with these recordings, because we don't have the right to re-release the derivatives under anything but a C or CC BY No Derivatives - due to the old release contracts.
That's the last time I attempt to articulate these VERY prevalent reasons why we cannot use Share Alike content at times. CC BY content would not adversely affect these situations and so we could easily use CC BY content, but never SA content. Where does that leave the free culture ideal, where SA just never gets used? I would say in an unreal and impractical place, that fails to recognise the system and culture that came before it, and refuses to offer faster and free-er ways towards more freeculture.
Skypecast Thursday? I'll set it up and announce it before you Aussies are out of bed.
Janet Hawtin
Thanks for reposting, I didnt see this first time through.
Interesting thoughts.
In software, interfacing with non gpl stuff is done with the lgpl
licence, perhaps there is something in that model for these purposes?
I dont have skype setup but will see what else is possible, my
standard chat space is irc on irc.freenode.net
Janet
Bronwyn Hegarty
If they insist on taking something for FREE and then wont negotiate any sort of compromise to agree to a CC by attribution and/or share-alike licence etc. then they probably haven't understood the philosophy of sharing and attributing ownership to the original creator. If they haven't understood then we haven't explained it properly or helped them to shift their beliefs.
I still stand by the belief that WikiEducator is only trying to promote sharing to prevent the very thing you are describing - people who love using C coming along and using CC material but being unwilling to change their views and attitudes to compromise. I would rather see a CC SA than a C on something. Plus I think it helps promote the idea of sharing. A similar licence doesn't mean an exact licence - doesn't it mean in the spirit of sharing and distributing? Am I being really thick about this?
Bron
Bronwyn Hegarty
Bron
Janet Hawtin
> I just reread the Cc terms and realise Share alike means an identical
> licence - oops. still if works have CC by then it can only promote the use
> of this kind of licensing and prevent CC by being gobbled up by those less
> insightful and then being sold on.
> Bron
yes i think leigh is right that the sa isnt a good fit for situations 1 and 2
something like lgpl which is designed to work in combination non free stuff
but to keep itself free is probably needed.
it would also mean that the components which are free and the
components which are restricted would need to be designed not to be
interdependent but to be more modular so one can be distributed
without the other. the alternative is investing efforts in developing
materials which only have value for the person with the fence around
their contribution.
i wonder if there are licences which have been tailored for indigenous
cultural fit.
sharing where culturally appropriate. it gets hard combining those
values with situations where you do not want to prejudice access
against people of a specific gender or age.
so again the restrictions on those works would make them something you
would need to work with in a modular way so that if youre investing
efforts in developing with that information you can easily pull it out
and repurpose your work. another way is not to use the licence to
control access.
open licence website managment systems such as joomla still have the
ability for website owners to make folders for material which are
accessed by logging in.
type03 and mysourcematrix have fine grained control of permission to access
because the function of the cms is distinct from its licence.
perhaps talking to folks who run indigenous sites might help?
the stuff in cat 3 is basically big C stuff and so is not accessible
the use or design of a free licence which fits the purpose of
interfacing with restricted materials will mean that less stuff in the
future is cat 3.
minimising situations where there is work not usable is a good goal
for edu sector and yes its likely to be a negotiation and a journey of
leading by example.
interesting questions and sorry for not getting the questions first
time through.
j
Leigh Blackall
We only had 5 people there, and mostly it was Eric and I going over what had already been discussed in the Wikieducator forum. The recording level is totally crap. I have fired the assistant.
I'd be very keen to continue these recorded discussions, especially if we can get more input, guest speakers etc etc.
Stewart Cheifet from the Internet Archive is willing to join us, as is JD Lasica from OurMedia, and George Siemens of Connectivism learning theory fame.
Sorry about it being MP3. Wikimediacommons kept disconnecting everytime I tried to load the OGG.
http://leighblackall.podomatic.com/entry/2007-04-25T20_57_12-07_00