Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-education - Re: [cc-education] target market for license?

cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Wiley <david AT wiley.ed.usu.edu>
  • To: development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-education] target market for license?
  • Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:56:04 -0600

I want to respond in reverse here; please forgive.

There's already plenty of computer software in the world that's available
under a restrictive license. My wife has a copy of Microsoft Word that's
licensed for educational use only. It's proprietary, not free, and there's no
reason CC should help Microsoft to promote the software or debug the license.

This is an apple / oranges comparison. M$ Word is licensed only for educational use only. cc.edu material gives users license (see http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/fullrights) to copy the work, to distribute it, to display or perform it publicly, to make digital public performances of it (e.g., webcasting), and to shift the work into another format as a verbatim copy, as long as they attribute, stay noncommercial, allow share-alike derivative works, and only make educational uses. VERY large difference between M$'s so-called educational use license.

This strikes me as silly, but if they want to do something that silly, they
can write their own license. Similarly, a dedicated zionists could write
a political tract and release it under a license that only allowed jews to
copy
it, and a palestinian activist could do something similar, for arabs only.

The question is not whether there's anyone who wants a certain licensing
scheme.
The question is whether CC should lend its name and legal expertise to it. If
people don't want to contribute to the world of free information, that's their
business, but I don't see why they deserve any help with it. The "Commons" in
Creative Commons has to mean something. It's not possible to say one is
putting
something in the commons and yet denying access to soldiers, politicians,
arabs, jews,
or people who talk on their cell phones while driving SUVs.

Overstating for effect is generally my sole territory, but you've done it well here. =) Your encouragement of everyone writing their own license would only significantly increase the confusion you wanted to avoid in your last post. It also creates the same troubles OPL did, namely the creation and evangelism of licenses by people with no formal legal background.

Providing one common, highly visible, legally sound license for people who want to encourage education (but nothing else, for whatever reason) should minimize the confusion you mentioned last post, but maximize the amount of content which will become available. (See http://www.reusability.org/blogs/david/archives/000139.html for a longer discussion.)

D





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page