development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[email AT greglondon.com]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:02:10 -0700, David Wiley wrote:
> email AT greglondon.com wrote:
> >On Mon,  9 Feb 2004 11:20:47 -0500, Zachary Chandler wrote:

> >Ack!!! no wonder the push for an education-only license
> >continues. You begin with the questionable assumption 
> >that more educators will contribute to an education-only 
> >license.
> >
> There is actually rather sound logic behind this idea. Most people want 
> to give up few rights. Few people want to give up most rights. There is 
> a fairly smooth continnum in between the two zealous ends. This is 
> explained in more detail here - 
> http://www.reusability.org/blogs/david/archives/000139.html

I just read it. you both implement circular reasoning.
you start with the premise "most want to give up few rights"
and "few want to give up most rights" and end up at the
conclusion that "most people want to give up few rights"
therefore "teachers want to give up few rights".

> >And you bifurcate the issue into only two simple 
> >options: 
> >open-license-gives-small-pool or 
> >edu-license-gives-big-pool
> >  
> >
> No, Zack didn't do this. I wrote in the draft. I believe empowering the 
> users to choose between attachment to educational institution (which the 
> CC lawyers tell me has a very clearly defined meaning, in the US legal 
> system anyway) was the best compromise we could arrive at based on all 
> the opinions expressed during the last several months' discussion.

It's still a bifurcation of the issue. 

> >A third alternative would be educating the teachers. Even IF the 
> >assumption is
> correct that more teachers
> >would contribute to a education-only license, that 
> >could be changed with an enrollment campaign of getting
> >the word out to teachers that something like CC-BY-SA
> >would tap into a much bigger commons than CC-BY-TeachersOnly.
> >  
> >
> I'm not sure what your background is, but I'm not sure you're aware of 
> the massive undertaking you're describing if you're talking about 
> getting teachers to change the way they do anything. "Let's just educate 
> teachers" has been the battle cry of everyone from politicians to 

grrr. I never said "just". I said "educating the teachers".
I didn't say it would be easy. That's a strawman argument.
And just a little below the belt.

> I don't believe the third alternative is realistic in the short term. We 
> need stepping stones to get us to our real target.

You call it a stepping stone, but the INERTIA of the licensing
will tend to keep works in an education-only domain forever.
It will be too difficult to relicense the works to your
"real target"  because a history of contributors means EVERYONE 
who added to the work must approve relicensing the work