development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[Zachary Chandler <zechandl AT colby.edu>]

Quoting David Wiley <dw2 AT opencontent.org>:
 
>   - 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)

ZC: That's a pretty neat clause. makes the reuse process more transparent for
other innovators, and might stimulate other ideas. I like it. Also reinforces
attribution.

> 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.

ZC: Right. The big one. I think that David has provided us with a thoughtful 
and
measured compromise. I can appreciate Stephen's stance about not watering down
a powerful tool for the public good, but there are two issues I'd bring up
again. 1) Courting new licensors in academia and 2) aforementioned limitations
in the legal language marrying "educational use" with institutions. 

I think David should be commended for crafting inclusive language with an "opt
out" feature for the hated institution clause. It's worth noting that the
default state is "open", and it takes a conscious decision to invoke the
institution restriction.

The decision on whether this matters, depends on what one thinks about the
likelihood that some content producers in higher ed might balk at this license
without an option for the institution clause. I can't say authoritatively, but
I expect that some would, so why not include the option? I recall Stephen's
counter-argument (please correct me if necessary) that providing this option
will cause licensors to choose the more restrictive license, even if they
wouldn't otherwise, simply because it's there -- especially if it's a readily
toggled radio button in the online licensing engine. I admit that that 
scenario
also seems fairly likely. Which then seems more attractive: a larger pool
comprised, in part, of more restricted content, or a smaller pool of open
content?

best,
Zach

==================================
Zachary Chandler
Language Technology Consultant
Director, Language Resource Center
Colby College
Waterville, Maine 04901  
http://www.colby.edu/lrc/
zechandl AT colby.edu
207.872.3898