development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

["Sanford Forte" <siforte AT ix.netcom.com>]

David Wiley writes:

 

>[snip]........................................................................The educational
>use option only excludes certain types of use, i.e., non-educational. It
>happens that by extension there are some who can never make acceptable
>use, and so because they cannot make acceptable use they are excluded.
>In exactly the same way, the noncommercial use clause only excludes
>certain types of use, i.e., commercial. It happens by extension that
>there are some who can never make acceptable use, and so because they
>cannot make acceptable use they are excluded.

-------------

-------------

This is a good insight (realtive to the thread that it's a part of), but it points up the confusion that so many *users* of these licenses must already (and no doubt 'will') experience. This is *complicated* stuff. This compelxity will be a deterrent, guaranteed.

 

There's a new field in the area of software design; it's called "interaction design" (has nothing to do with interface design, btw). Interaction design has more to do with "how software behaves", and tries to uncover what the *goals* of the user is in using the software that is proposed.

 

From the perspective of most users, this is how we have to think - *what are the goals of the user*. I see those goals as 1) assuring the user that his/her content will not be misused; and, 2) that the language enabling those goals must be clear, precise, and utterly without confusion. I'm not condescending here, because I know that everyone is working to get something happening that accomplishes the goals of people who use open or free licenses, and wants to use them to optimal effect.

 

Why can't some language be created that simply says something like "This material is for free educational use. If this material is reproduced in whole, in part, or as an addendum to other materials for profit, the producer must pay a fee to the creator of these materials". There could then be some language that says that the material can be modified (or not), and that the author wants attribution (or not). End of story.

 

Why am I suggesting something like this? Because, ultimately, there is no way to control the creativity of the profit-making world. IN a way, this reflects back on the statement I made above [i.e. "1) assuring the user that his/her content will not be misused;"].

 

Someone, somewhere will always find a way to use free stuff, either by lifting it wholesale, or addending/modifying it just enough to make a buck. I get the sense that we're all trying to figure out how to control open and free content to keep it from misuse, but we won't ever be able to do that. And, in the process of trying to do that; in the process of trying to be too pure (in a world that's pervasively grey) we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

I say "put the stuff out there" and let it fly. If a for-profit company wants to use my material to addend their materials, and charge a profit for it, then they're going to have to pay me. If what they produce is better than what is available (wholly, or in part) from free or open content, so be it.

 

Eventually, when profiteers who do this put thier stuff out there, other contributors in the open and free content arena will add new materials to new efforts that 'compete' with the for-profit group. What this leads to is open market competition of the best *ideas*, the best combinations and permutations of content, that spur more creativity and motivation to do still better content.

 

I'm coming at this as someone who is part of the "great unwashed" as far as the minutiae of open or free licensing is concerned. If I were an author, I would be turned off by the tiny details and granular differentiations that these licensing schemes present.

 

Is there another way? Or is it too late?

 

Someone recently wrote that creating licensing distinctions for open or free content that is minutely differentiated would itself be a deterrent to free and open content. I agree completely.

 

Imagine a teacher who has worked for 10 years and created her own very sophisticated materials. She decides to put them into an open or free content arena. How in the world is she going to be expected to negotiate the complexity of open or free licensing.

 

I say this with all due respect, but this whole thing (form the persepctives of both open and free, and the possible combinations thereof) seems broken, and impossibly complex.

 

Will someone point out why I'm wrong - what am I missing here? (btw, I'd *love* to be wrong about this...fire away) 

 

Sanford