development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[dcrkid AT optonline.net]

Yes, a "formal" edu license would be a problem, since then it is it's own
can of worms.

A better idea would be to allow it to any form of learning, not just
"formal" learning. Glad you people brought that up.

On a different note, what icon should we use for the license? It may be
trivial, but we need to think about that sometime, as it should be something
you see and understand. I have attached my idea for the logo, if you like
it, use it if you want.
----- Original Message -----
From: <cc-education-request AT lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:09 PM
Subject: cc-education Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5


> Send cc-education mailing list submissions to
> cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-education
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cc-education-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cc-education-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cc-education digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Quick Draft (David Wiley) (Sanford Forte)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 23:09:53 -0800
> From: "Sanford Forte" <siforte AT ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: [cc-education] Re: Quick Draft (David Wiley)
> To: <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <000e01c3ed49$63101620$0400a8c0@oemcomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Quick draft (David Wiley)
> >    2. Re: Quick draft (Stephen Downes)
> >    3. Re: Quick draft (David Wiley)
> >    4. Re: Quick draft (Heather Ford)
> >    5. Re: Quick draft (David Wiley)
> >    6. CC-BY-SA  or  CC-BY-NC-ND (email AT greglondon.com)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:02:56 -0700
> > From: David Wiley <dw2 AT opencontent.org>
> > Subject: [cc-education] Quick draft
> > To: development of an education license or license option for Creative
> > Commons <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>, Laura Lynch
> > <llynch AT stanford.edu>
> > Message-ID: <4023C8C0.70808 AT opencontent.org>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> >
> > Hello all. There have only been a handful of responses to the last
> > email. I hope people won't feel offended or that I'm jumping the gun by
> > offering draft language with so few responses, but we are working on a
> > schedule.
> >
> > As context for the draft below, please take a moment to look at the
> > format of CC's new Sampling License -
> > http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling - I've made a conscious
> > effort to make our draft similar in structure and style. There is some
> > discussion below the draft.
> >
> > <DRAFT LANGUAGE>
> >
> > If you make your work available under the Education License, you require
> > that users of your work:
> >
> >   - Cite you as the source of the work per standard academic practices,
> >
> >   - Make only noncommercial uses of your work which primarily and
> > purposively facilitate learning, and
> ------------
> HI David,
>
> Good work.
>
> Would the word "noncmmercial" forbid a content-based "Red Hat" from
> organization and redistribution of the materials? This is important
because
> once the content resevoir fills up, many large-scale users (e.g. school
> systems) will require the organizational and distribution savvy of a
> commercial distributor (with customer service capabilities) to achieve
> optimal large-scale use.
>
> Clearly, such an organization would be "commercial" in nature - whether as
a
> non-profit, or for-profit. Again, would the spirit (more importantly, the
> letter) of the license forbid this?
>
> >
> >   - 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)
> >
> > Do you want to:
> >
> > Allow 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, to make permitted uses of your work?
> >
> >   - Yes
> >
> >   - No, I want to restrict use of my work to only teachers, students,
> > and others directly associated with a formal educational institution.
> ---------------
> The two distinctions above would be practically impossible to police. Why?
> Because of the word 'formal', which would certainly be challenged.
>
> Also, it seems a pity to forbid a learner to use materials just because
she
> is not part of a 'formal' educational setting. It smacks of a certain
> elitism that runs counter to the spirit of open content. In fact, such a
> distinction would fly in the face of letting open content get to the
'edge'.
> and thus spur on new forms of learning.
>
> > </DRAFT>
> >
> > This license is sort of a "By-NC-SA Plus" license. The three pluses are
> > (1) noncommercial uses are not sufficient - uses must be noncommercial
> > AND primarily facilitate learning, (2) a mechanism is imposed that
> > establishes accountability for for the creation of derivative works.
> >
> > (3) is the big one. Rather than decide for the user whether to stick to
> > formal educational institutions or not, the draft language passes the
> > decision on to the user. This choice in effect creates two education
> > licenses. You will see at http://creativecommons.org/projects/sampling
> > that the Sampling licence takes two forms because of a similar option,
> > with two distinct license names and two separate icons. I propose that
> > we call one license the Open Education license, and the other the Formal
> > Education License, and that we also use two separate icons to keep clear
> > in users minds' which is which.
> ---------
> Again, I see only one license as practical, the "Open Education License".
>
> Best,
> Sanford
> >
> > So, feedback please. Remember we're trying to arrive at a draft by next
> > Wednesday. Thanks for your blood, sweat, and tears on this,
> >
> > David
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-education mailing list
> cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-education
>
>
> End of cc-education Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5
> ******************************************

Attachment: ccedu.png
Description: PNG image