CC BY SA - was: Make Internet TV guide
Leigh Blackall
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?
Useful new CC-BY-SA resource supported by the Knight Foundation:
http://makeinternettv.org/
--
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
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
mackiwg
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.
Cheers
Wayne
Leigh Blackall
- 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.
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
Erik Moeller
> 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.
Steve Foerster
<< 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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SteveFoerster
<< 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?
-=Steve=-
mackiwg
> 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.
Cheers
Leigh Blackall
BY-SA and GNU FDL materials?
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.
Erik Moeller
> 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.
mackiwg
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.
>
Erik Moeller
> 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
Erik Moeller
> 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.
Leigh Blackall
Thanks for discussing this with me.
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
Erik Moeller
> 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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Large/Licencing
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.
Leigh Blackall
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
Leigh Blackall
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,
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.
--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
Erik Moeller
> 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:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Contents
Leigh Blackall
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.
Erik Moeller
> 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.
Leigh Blackall
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.
Steve Foerster
<< 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:
Public domain:
http://wikieducator.org/XXI_Texts:Some_page
http://wikieducator.org/XXI_Texts:Some_other_page
CC-BY-SA:
http://wikieducator.org/Normal_content_page
http://wikieducator.org/Normal_content_page_2
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?
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?
-=Steve=-
Erik Moeller
> 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:".
Leigh Blackall
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?
Peter
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...
Good idea?????
Thanks for all your great work...
Be Well...
Peter
Leigh Blackall
As the same discussion is going on over at the TALO email list (actually, a bit more in depth and a little heated on my part :) someone else asked for a recorded skypecast!!
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!!?
Leigh Blackall
But I told the TALO group that I would set up a skypecast this morning.. not sure how many will turn up for this one though -
Here's the link to join the skypecast that starts in 20 minutes. Note that you will need Skype open and running.
--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
Leigh Blackall
We only had 5 people there, and mostly it was Eric and I going over what had already been discussed. The recording level is totally crap. I have fired the assistant.
I'd be very keen to continue this 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 Seimens of Connectivism learning theory fame.
Sorry about it being MPS. Wikimediacommons kept disconnecting everytime I tried to load the OGG.
http://leighblackall.podomatic.com/entry/2007-04-25T20_57_12-07_00
hmmm. Vancouver should be out of bed by now.. you must be tied up Peter...
But I told the TALO group that I would set up a skypecast this morning.. not sure how many will turn up for this one though -
Here's the link to join the skypecast that starts in 20 minutes . Note that you will need Skype open and running.