development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

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

There are good points made for both having, and not having, an EDU license.

One of the powerful arguments 'for' the license is the *current perception*
that 'educational content' is somehow elevated, somehow contributes 'more'
to the development of the user, than non-educational content. Nothing could
be further from the truth; however, the *perception* is there.

An EDU license will be of use to stimulate those who hold their open
educational content contributions as sacrosanct, and somehow contributing to
the realm of 'elevated' content (in terms of intended purpose). It will
stimulate a specific kind of contributor to enter the open content arena.
This contributor - if you'll permit me a generalization - is one often one
who thinks that s/he is adding to the font of knowledge in a way that is
"more special" than those who write science fiction, biographies, political
punditry, etc.. Of course, you and I know that this isn't the case, but a
great number of writers who have contributed to the pool of educational
content believe that *this is the case*. The EDU license is for that 'type'
of contributor. It's a stimulus to get those who would otherwise not
contribute, to contribute.

One could argue that other persons would be inhibited from contributing
because of the restrictive nature of an EDU license. Those persons might
view themselves outside the artificial "educational content" arena that
defines those who will be made comfortable by an EDU license. *If it's made
clear to these persons, at the outset*, that *any* content put into a
general open content arena can be used for educational purposes, that should
solve the problem.

So, how can we resolve apparent constraints of two licenses? (incidentally,
my 'heart' is with email AT greglondon.com, but my 'head' is for the EDU
license, for the reasons stated above, and following).

It's imperative that CC find a way to help users understand the concept of
open content as they opt to use one license, or another. When someone
decides to use the EDU license, there should be an immediate prompt (link,
etc.) that explains - in *simple* language, the benefits of more open
licenses (relative to the EDU license), without restrictions.

I noted the other day that the word 'formal' - as applied to education - is
quickly morphing to another meaning (relative to what education is
*becoming, in terms of delivery mediums, and use*). This is something that
CC could help make educators aware of *as they consider the EDU license*, in
order to have them consider using less restrictive licenses (noting that the
alterations I suggested a few days ago in the draft language would - for
most intents and purposes - make the EDU license open to virtually any use,
anyway).

Also, as educators begin to contribute to an open content commons, and use
licenses that restrict their content to specific venues, they will begin to
see similar content, aimed at the same audience, that applies a more general
CC license.

One caveat to the above - in terms of personal preference for an EDU
license - is that the license should be 'tested' thoroughly on naive users
before being deployed. This is *important*.  If those users are confused -
in *any* way that makes them bolt from making a contribution, or creates
confusion that makes them throw up their hands, *start over again, or ditch
the EDU license idea altogether*.

We *must* be sure that special-purpose licenses encourage contribution, and
not inhibit through lack of transparency, confusion, etc. The cardinal rule
for anything that goes in front of a user - especially in this case - has to
be "it must be immediately comprehensible to the lowest common denominator
(i.e. naive users)".

My primary fear is that additional licenses will create confusion, and such
a tangle - especially in the long term - that open content (again, speaking
in the long term) becomes 'frozen' in terms of relative potential because
only a few can decipher the differences between licenses, and what they
mean. This would indeed be a great tragedy

In short, open content licenses must *mean* something, *immediately* to the
user. If they don't, we're dropping poison pills into the whole idea of open
content, long term.

In a very real way, this is about the "interface" between the technology of
licensing and the user.

Sanford





----- Original Message ----- 
From: <cc-education-request AT lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 1:36 PM
Subject: cc-education Digest, Vol 8, Issue 8


> 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. WHY EDU ? (email AT greglondon.com)
>    2. Re: WHY EDU ? (Zachary Chandler)
>    3. RE: WHY EDU ? (Alexander, Bryan)
>    4. Re: WHY EDU ? (Heather Ford)
>    5. Re: Quick draft (Heather Ford)
>    6. RE: WHY EDU ? (email AT greglondon.com)
>    7. Re: Quick draft (email AT greglondon.com)
>    8. Re: Quick draft (email AT greglondon.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:25:46 -0800 (PST)
> From: email AT greglondon.com
> Subject: [cc-education] WHY EDU ?
> To: cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> <20040209092716.11352.h016.c001.wm AT mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Since a longer message generated no replies,
> I'll try a shorter one.
>
> Can someone explain WHY an Education-Only
> license needs to exist?
>
> What benefits would an education-only license
> have that would compensate for the advantages
> LOST from not using a much more public CC-BY-SA.
>
> For reference, the software open source defintion,
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
> item #5 says "no discrimination against persons or groups"
> item #6 says "no discrimination against fields of endeavors"
> explanations are included immediately afterwards.
>
> For what reasons are the lessons of open source
> that were learned in the software world being
> ignored by the push to create an eductation-only
> license?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon,  9 Feb 2004 12:44:54 -0500
> From: Zachary Chandler <zechandl AT colby.edu>
> Subject: Re: [cc-education] WHY EDU ?
> To: development of an education license or license option for Creative
> Commons <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <1076348694.4027c716e60ed AT www.colby.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
> Quoting email AT greglondon.com:
>
> > Can someone explain WHY an Education-Only
> > license needs to exist?
> >
> > What benefits would an education-only license
> > have that would compensate for the advantages
> > LOST from not using a much more public CC-BY-SA.
>
> For my part, it's the promotional power of the EDU stamp, getting more
people on
> board. I guess what we have to decide if that's important enough to
warrant a
> degradation of the open content principle. Though I respect the
alternative, I
> lean in favor of the edu license especially the new draft option -- but
then
> again I work for a college.
>
> -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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:18:51 -0500
> From: "Alexander, Bryan" <balexan AT middlebury.edu>
> Subject: RE: [cc-education] WHY EDU ?
> To: 'development of an education license or license option for
> Creative Commons' <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> <3C0B8A669CB61042968C367F36A2BAEC793517 AT bengal.middlebury.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Many college faculty have the sense of copyright as something external to
> them.  An edu license could bring it home, as it were.
>
> Bryan Alexander
> Center for Educational Technology
> http://cet.middlebury.edu/bryan
> ICQ: 23090001
> AIM: "DoctorNemoBryan"
> Windows Messenger: balexan AT middlebury.edu
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zachary Chandler [mailto:zechandl AT colby.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 12:45 PM
> To: development of an education license or license option for Creative
> Commons
> Subject: Re: [cc-education] WHY EDU ?
>
>
>
> Quoting email AT greglondon.com:
>
> > Can someone explain WHY an Education-Only
> > license needs to exist?
> >
> > What benefits would an education-only license
> > have that would compensate for the advantages
> > LOST from not using a much more public CC-BY-SA.
>
> For my part, it's the promotional power of the EDU stamp, getting more
> people on board. I guess what we have to decide if that's important enough
> to warrant a degradation of the open content principle. Though I respect
the
> alternative, I lean in favor of the edu license especially the new draft
> option -- but then again I work for a college.
>
> -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
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-education mailing list
> cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-education
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:19:25 -0800
> From: Heather Ford <hford AT csli.stanford.edu>
> Subject: Re: [cc-education] WHY EDU ?
> To: development of an education license or license option for Creative
> Commons <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20040209101528.020e9210@localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> At 09:44 AM 2/9/2004, you wrote:
>
> >Quoting email AT greglondon.com:
> >
> > > Can someone explain WHY an Education-Only
> > > license needs to exist?
> > >
> > > What benefits would an education-only license
> > > have that would compensate for the advantages
> > > LOST from not using a much more public CC-BY-SA.
> >
> >For my part, it's the promotional power of the EDU stamp, getting more
> >people on
> >board. I guess what we have to decide if that's important enough to
warrant a
> >degradation of the open content principle. Though I respect the
alternative, I
> >lean in favor of the edu license especially the new draft option -- but
then
> >again I work for a college.
>
> I think that the benefits of an education license are significant. One,
> that people may want to give their products away specifically for
> educational use and educational use only; and two, that large software
> companies who also do educational work can use the license for their
> educational projects (adding to what Zachary has said above).
>
> H.
>
> Heather Ford
> ************************************************
> www.hblog.org
> Reuters Stanford Digital Visions Program
> http://reuters.stanford.edu
> Cordura Hall, 220 Panama Street
> Stanford, CA 94305-4115, USA
> Cell: 650 380 4227
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:35:32 -0800
> From: Heather Ford <hford AT csli.stanford.edu>
> Subject: Re: [cc-education] Quick draft
> To: development of an education license or license option for Creative
> Commons <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20040209102225.020f7a68@localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> >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
>
> I agree with Zach - but I think that an important point that we seem to be
> missing is that Creative Commons is about creating a *spectrum* of
rights -
> we do give guidelines and choices, but we want to create *balance* in the
> present copyright system so that rights are distributed more fairly
> throughout society. If this means that we put the choice of whether
> educational use should be limited to formal institutions or not
(depending,
> for example, on very different *national* educational contexts) then I
> think that we should give people that option - hoping that at least they
> will have to think about what education and learning really means and
where
> it can take place. I really don't think we should abandon the license
> before testing it out and gauging responses from a wider audience -
> especially the learners, facilitators, educators, teachers, lecturers and
> students who will actually make use of the licenses.
>
> In the end, I suppose it's more about *how much* we want to do - how much
> change is enough for us to introduce to a sector in which these ideas are
> not prevalent (as is the case in the software industry) in order for the
> licenses to be successful and popular. In the end, what Creative Commons
is
> aiming for is for people from all disciplines to be presented with a
> variety of different *alternatives* to copyright that make them think
about
> what 'intellectual property' is all about. For me, distributing this
> (really vibrant) discussion about what learning is really about to a wider
> public by actually implementing a license (which we can alter in the
future
> or add to if the need arises) is much better than doing nothing.
>
> Best,
>
> Heather.
>
>
> >==================================
> >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
> >_______________________________________________
> >cc-education mailing list
> >cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-education
>
> Heather Ford
> ************************************************
> www.hblog.org
> Reuters Stanford Digital Visions Program
> http://reuters.stanford.edu
> Cordura Hall, 220 Panama Street
> Stanford, CA 94305-4115, USA
> Cell: 650 380 4227
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:46:53 -0800 (PST)
> From: email AT greglondon.com
> Subject: RE: [cc-education] WHY EDU ?
> To: cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> <20040209124654.3509.h009.c001.wm AT mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:18:51 -0500 , "Alexander, Bryan" wrote:
> > Many college faculty have the sense of copyright as something external
to
> > them.  An edu license could bring it home, as it were.
>
> 3 replies so far, and they all say the same thing:
> More teachers will contribute under a license
> that has the word "Educational" in its title.
>
> And those contributions won't be going into a
> public commons, they'll be going into a much SMALLER,
> "education only" pasture, where people can only
> use works for educational purposes and only students
> and teachers will likely make any contributions
> to the works.
>
> Do you not see the cost of doing this will
> likely mean most works will be vanity works?
> Works contributed by a professor, used in
> his/her class only, with typos / improvements
> only to be contributed by his/her students?
>
> You are cutting off the majority of teh population
> that would benefit from these works and therefore
> you are cutting off that population from making
> any CONTRIBUTIONS to those works that would BENEFIT
> those works.
>
> A simple CC-BY-SA license allows EVERYONE access
> to the work. And everyone benefits from using the
> work, meaning ANYONE could be a likely contributor
> TO the work to improve it. An education only license
> takes "everyone" and reduces to a tiny fraction of it.
>
> If the only real excuse for the education only
> license is its easier to convince teachers to
> contribute works under such a license, then
> the time and energy spent coming up with an
> education-only license would be better spent,
> in the long run, on EDUCATING THE TEACHERS
> so they understand that the benefit of a public
> commons only comes when the entire public can
> use and contribute to the works, not just a small
> minority.
>
> My perl training manual is CC-BY-SA. Anyone can
> use it. If everyone can use it, the potential
> for fixes and contributions to improve it are
> far better than if I limit it to CC-BY-TeachersOnly
> or something similar. If a company decides to
> offer print-on-demand books of my manual, don't
> you think they'd want it to be the best possible
> manual? And any changes they make to it would still
> be licensed under CC-BY-SA, still in the public
> commons. Non-educational uses will not take a
> sharealike work out of the commons. Commercial
> uses will not take a sharealike work out of the
> commons.
>
> A new license isn't needed for educational works.
> What's needed is a better explanation so teachers
> understand their works will benefit more under
> a public license rather than a education only license,
> that with the whole world reading their works,
> all bugs are shallow, and every person becomes a
> possible contributor to make their works better.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:36:18 -0800 (PST)
> From: email AT greglondon.com
> Subject: Re: [cc-education] Quick draft
> To: cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Cc: cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> <20040209133619.29555.h014.c001.wm AT mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> On Mon,  9 Feb 2004 11:20:47 -0500, Zachary Chandler wrote:
> > Which then seems more attractive: a larger pool
> > comprised, in part, of more restricted content,
> > or a smaller pool of open content?
>
> 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. And you bifurcate the issue into only two simple
> options:
> open-license-gives-small-pool or
> edu-license-gives-big-pool
>
> 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.
>
> Richard Stallman created teh first GNU-GPL license in 1984.
> The first program to use the license was a text editor.
> Linus Torvalds wrote the first linux kernel in 1991.
> RedHat went IPO selling Linux installations in 1999.
> SIXTEEN YEARS to get from zero to MILLIONS of Linux installations.
>
> I promise you that you will NEVER see this level of growth,
> adoption, and expansion, on a work that is licensed
> education only.
>
> What might be missing is some educator who fills a similar
> role that Stallman, Torvalds, or RedHat filled in the
> Linux OS licensed under GNU-GPL, someone who can rally
> contributions from one phase to the next. The initial
> GNU project was long on ideas and short on actual works.
> bits and pieces came together slowly. A text editor
> and a compiler were the first components that came available.
> The Linus provided an actual working Kernel. It was
> a minimalistic OS, but it worked, and there was a surge
> in interest. Then RedHat came along and created a business
> model off of linux, pushing Linux beyond the technophiles
> and into the homes of people who only needed a CD drive
> and compatible hardware.
>
> If you want educational materials to follow this kind
> of track, then you'll want a public license like
> CC-BY-SA that will eventually allow world-wide contributions
> from anyone, anywhere, in any field of work,
> and will allow companies like RedHat to create
> a business on it.
>
> If you push an educational only license, you may
> increase the number of initial contributions, but
> you will be much harder pressed to move the project
> beyond the initial, Richard Stallman phase of
> little more than a working text editor and C compiler.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:36:18 -0800 (PST)
> From: email AT greglondon.com
> Subject: Re: [cc-education] Quick draft
> To: cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Cc: cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> <20040209133619.29555.h014.c001.wm AT mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> On Mon,  9 Feb 2004 11:20:47 -0500, Zachary Chandler wrote:
> > Which then seems more attractive: a larger pool
> > comprised, in part, of more restricted content,
> > or a smaller pool of open content?
>
> 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. And you bifurcate the issue into only two simple
> options:
> open-license-gives-small-pool or
> edu-license-gives-big-pool
>
> 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.
>
> Richard Stallman created teh first GNU-GPL license in 1984.
> The first program to use the license was a text editor.
> Linus Torvalds wrote the first linux kernel in 1991.
> RedHat went IPO selling Linux installations in 1999.
> SIXTEEN YEARS to get from zero to MILLIONS of Linux installations.
>
> I promise you that you will NEVER see this level of growth,
> adoption, and expansion, on a work that is licensed
> education only.
>
> What might be missing is some educator who fills a similar
> role that Stallman, Torvalds, or RedHat filled in the
> Linux OS licensed under GNU-GPL, someone who can rally
> contributions from one phase to the next. The initial
> GNU project was long on ideas and short on actual works.
> bits and pieces came together slowly. A text editor
> and a compiler were the first components that came available.
> The Linus provided an actual working Kernel. It was
> a minimalistic OS, but it worked, and there was a surge
> in interest. Then RedHat came along and created a business
> model off of linux, pushing Linux beyond the technophiles
> and into the homes of people who only needed a CD drive
> and compatible hardware.
>
> If you want educational materials to follow this kind
> of track, then you'll want a public license like
> CC-BY-SA that will eventually allow world-wide contributions
> from anyone, anywhere, in any field of work,
> and will allow companies like RedHat to create
> a business on it.
>
> If you push an educational only license, you may
> increase the number of initial contributions, but
> you will be much harder pressed to move the project
> beyond the initial, Richard Stallman phase of
> little more than a working text editor and C compiler.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 8
> ******************************************