[cc-community] NC/ND

Mike Linksvayer ml at creativecommons.org
Mon Dec 19 18:29:22 EST 2011


On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It seems to
>>> me that the CC-By-NC-SA license is a bit of an afterthought.  The
>>> technology (free videos) was the main idea.  Does the license matter
>>> at all in this case?
>>
>> In the case of NC, I'd say no.
>
> OK, so that's the case of Khan Academy handled.
>
> What about MIT-OCW?  If there had never been a CC-By-NC-SA (or the
> same by another name), would MIT-OCW have never have existed?
>
> MIT-OCW came into existence in October of 2002, and the Creative
> Commons licenses were released in December of the same year.  Some
> historian would have to dig deeper to say what was happening during
> those three months.

Well, you can see at
http://web.archive.org/web/20021014232310/http://ocw.mit.edu/global/terms-of-use.html
that they had what looks like a very lightweight thing that seems to
approximate BY-NC-SA. For awhile then they used a modified version of
BY-NC-SA 1.0 (of course a modified CC license isn't a CC license)
until they adopted CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0 (for which they gave input during
the drafting process).

Clearly OCW (and lots of other projects -- as mentioned previously, in
the few years before CC launched, lots of "open content" projects and
licenses were started) would've happened without CC. Hopefully using a
CC "standard" license has made them all more effective.

> Fast forward a decade, and "They are currently projected to run out of
> financial reserves in FY2012 without additional sources of funding".
> Interesting opportunity for an intervention.  (MIT can't make money
> off of their NC licensed materials -- and yet they will still insist
> that others shouldn't either?)

I have no idea whether they've tried to make money by selling licenses
to those materials (a business which NC prevents direct competition
with). Whether they have tried or not, it seems unlikely they will.
Newer OER projects seem to be tending away from NC, perhaps as they
(or funders) have seen that it doesn't help on the revenue side and/or
does hurt on the impact side.

Of course one of the less-than-fully-rebranding things that CC could
do would be to clearly mark (presumably in the license chooser and on
deeds) that NC and ND licenses are suboptimal for largely publicly
funded and/or interested fields such as education. Such should be
informed by what has happened over the last decade, but also look
ahead to maximizing social welfare over the next decade or more.

Mike


More information about the cc-community mailing list