[cc-education] Second draft
Heather Ford
hford at csli.stanford.edu
Tue Feb 10 17:55:54 EST 2004
I don't see that anyone has actually responded to your attempts at
compromise, David - I hope that they use this opportunity as you attempt to
accommodate everyone. I like this draft. But I liked the other one better -
especially because I wanted to see how the *larger* community would, in
fact, use the license and how they would choose specific conditions
(thereby relying on the community to decide the direction of development).
I propose that if those opposed to your first draft (perhaps those people
should identify themselves) are able to agree with your first draft, then I
will be willing to initiate a research project to track the choices that
people are making in terms of whether they're choosing formal or informal
educational licensing - and will then report back to the community in a
couple of months time.
This said, I am happy with the second draft - but for it's slightly blurry
definition of who can use the license (which in effect means everyone) -
can we perhaps say 'under the Education License, you require that
learning-facilitators... ? if we're going to go with this? I understand
that legal language is important here.
Heather.
At 09:48 PM 2/9/2004, you wrote:
>This draft removes the "educational institution option" but maintains the
>language which makes it clear that the educational use license IS NOT JUST
>FOR TEACHERS AND STUDENTS. This is basically the "open education license."
>
><DRAFT 2>
>
>If you make your work available under the Education License, you require
>that teachers, students, and others directly associated with a formal
>educational institution, as well as mentors, tutors, self-learners, and
>others who may not be directly associated with a formal educational
>institution:
>
> - Cite you as the source of the work,
>
> - Make only noncommercial uses of your work which primarily and
> purposively facilitate learning, and
>
> - Distribute any modified versions of your work
>
> + under this same license, and
> + include in the distribution a copy of the original work which
> allows users to determine what changes you made to the derived work
> (inclusion by link / reference is sufficient)
>
></DRAFT>
>
>This draft removes the option because, though a few people have
>complimented efforts to harmonize the different viewpoints (thanks for the
>encouragement!), I've yet to hear anyone argue intensely in its favor. If
>you want choice back in the license, let's here it.
>
>D
>_______________________________________________
>cc-education mailing list
>cc-education at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-education
Heather Ford
************************************************
www.hblog.org
Reuters Stanford Digital Visions Program
http://reuters.stanford.edu
Cordura Hall, 220 Panama Street
Stanford, CA 94305-4115, USA
Cell: 650 380 4227
More information about the cc-education
mailing list