development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

["David Palmer." <davidpalmer AT westnet.com.au>]

On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 21:53, Zachary Chandler wrote:
> Quoting Steve Foerster <steve AT longlever.com>:
>  
> > There's a license out there called the "Academic Free License"; version 
> >   2.0 is at <http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.0.php>.
> > 
> > The Open Source Initiative releases its content under this license and 
> > version 2.0 of the Open Software License.
> > 
> > Any thoughts?
> 
> For my part, I think we should keep our focus on Creative Commons projects. 
> They
> have popular support, good press, smart people, and perhaps most 
> importantly,
> IP lawyers. Another selling point is that their licenses are for content
> generally, and not just software. Not that I don't think we can't learn from
> the above organization, I just balk at the possibility of unnecessary 
> forking.
> 
> </two cents>
> -Zach
> 
Yes, I agree that it is productive to keep our collective mind on the
task at hand, but I also think that looking at examples such as this
that have survived within the environment, with a view to borrowing
aspects for example, is a responsible part of that.
There are a number of these examples out there, I note that the GPL and
the Debian social contract have been taken note of, but another example,
even though it appears to have been drawn from the same sources as the
CC proposals could bear fruit as regards an aspect that hasn't been
appropriately taken into consideration before.

My present point of view, as others have suggested, is to keep the
selection as limited as possible. I am in agreement that several options
should be avoided in order to keep the selective process as
uncomplicated as possible, and also in order to encourage, with careful
selection of licence type, a migration toward total open source.

As I have stated before, I believe that we would experience market
resistance by stipulating only the complete open source option, but I
think that this should be incorporated as an option for a couple of
reasons:-
(1) There definitely will be educators, as entities such as M.I.T. have
demonstrated, that want to ensure the widest possible community benefit
and will employ this option. If it isn't there they will be unable to do
so, and a large part of the spirit of the C.C. effort will be negated
simply by way of lack of choice;
(2) To establish the concept of open source, and the idea of 'education
for all' in the minds of educators as they peruse the options, who,
although they may not choose this option on the first time around, may
very well do so on the second or third.

A second option I should include would be the 'educational institution
only' concept as already discussed and established. This for the benefit
of those more conservative educators that simply find themselves unable
to align themselves with the ideas of the 'open source, long-hair,
hippie drug culture'. They are out there, I know I've meet them.
<<shudder>>
I think we need to consider here that this particular licence option is
going to be considered radical and daring enough for some of these
personalities? and provides a more gentle introduction into the mindset
that is going to be more productive in the area of community enrichment.
The concept of total open source licencing is easily embraced by any
number of personalities here, but consider that the personalities here
are probably representative of the more progressive elements of the
educational environment, and concepts easily accepted here without a
second thought would alienate many in our initial potential market.

As a third and final option I would introduce an identical format, but
with a time factor involved. i.e., the 'educational institution only'
format, but with say a three to five year life span, after which the
material automatically transfers to the open source format licence.
Into this category, our home economics and part-time english grammar
blue rinse spinster, after his first daring leap, may well consider
putting his lifes' work. 

I consider that the one only option, although keeping things simplified,
is restrictive in itself.
I believe that the idea of 'several' options is also counter productive.
I think that a minimal few may very well answer the call.
Regards,

David.