[cc-education] cc.edu survey results and deja vu

David Wiley dw2 at opencontent.org
Wed Dec 10 14:21:19 EST 2003


Crossposted from http://www.reusability.org/blogs/david/archives/000408.html


Here are the results of the survey on “what would ‘free for educational 
use’ mean to you?” There were fifteen (15) responses I could interpret. 
I did not respond. I counted answers like “possibly” as a yes vote, and 
those like “probably not” as a no vote. If you care to, you can check 
the data from the comments and trackback section of my blog. Spoiler: 
we’re back to where we started.

Twelve (12) votes for “e) that the materials are only to be used for 
educational or research purposes.”

Twelve (12) votes for “a) you would need to provide some reference or 
“give credit” to the materials’ creator”

Ten (10) votes for “c) that the materials were not to be used commercially”

Five (5) votes for “b) that any changes you made to the materials needed 
to be shared freely with others”

Four (4) votes for “d) that the materials should only be used in the 
context of a formal educational institution (e.g., not to be used for 
self-study by individuals not enrolled as students in a formal school)”

If we were to follow majority opinion here, we are back to a cc.edu 
composed of an attribution clause, a noncommerical clause, and an 
educational use only clause. Sort of where we started this disucssion 
several months ago (with a proposed educational use only clause).

Where do we go from here? Do we return to the “educational use only” 
language or should we ignore the data and do what we think is best?

I’ll expose an assumption I am making. I believe that the best way to 
make inroads with an education license is to have it mean, as reasonably 
as possible, what people commonly think an “educational license” means. 
I believe doing otherwise will lead to confusion — people would see a 
“Educational License” and assume that it means one thing when it 
actually means another. This behavior seems to encourage violations of 
the license’s terms. If we want a license that means something else, 
then we ought to pick another title, to avoid “concpetual namespace 
issues.” Something like the “Learning License” or something. Not that 
there wouldn't be serious conceptual issues with having both an 
educational license and a learning license...

Having opened that can of worms, I’ll reiterate that I think the best 
way to make inroads is to reify what people generally think about 
educational use in a license with strong legal terms and then waive the 
banner. Projects like the one Heather mentioned earlier need the license 
to exist before they can roll forward. So, without any further ado, here 
is our old working definition of educational use:

    You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3
    above except in satisfaction of both of the following conditions:
    (i) You do so in a manner that is directly related to and of
    material assistance to the primary teaching and learning activities
    of an educational institution, and
    (ii) You do so solely for educational purposes.
    An “educational institution” is a school or other organization
    primarily and directly engaged in facilitating teaching and learning.

I know people hated the strong tie to formal learning, but that’s what 
educational use means to the US legal system as reported to us by Kevin 
Rothman, the pro bono lawyer attached to the cc.edu project. And I see 
very little point in producing a license which is both (a) out of touch 
with what the common person thinks it should be, and (b) out of touch 
with what the courts think it should be.

As I’ve said before, a careful reading of this language will show that, 
while using the court’s historical conception of “education,” this 
language enables a significant amount of informal learning not available 
in other education licenses.

Also, notice the final phrase “An ‘educational institution’ is a school 
or other organization primarily and directly engaged in facilitating 
teaching and learning.” An organization like Open Education or somesuch 
might be able to play an interesting role in increasing the numbr people 
who would qualify under this language.

Waiting for your responses.…

David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-education/attachments/20031210/1ebf70d9/attachment.htm


More information about the cc-education mailing list