development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[Zachary Chandler <zechandl AT colby.edu>]

I vote yes to all eight (at the risk of vitriolic flames). I am not 100%
convinced that Stephen isn't right, but my only other choice would be
abstention from voting. I think that the binary opt-out for the institution
clause is well worded, and if it were omitted we essentially would be
repackaging an existing license. We have made a good faith effort at
inclusion.

I would like to thank David Wiley for his hard work, and Glen and the Creative
Commons for providing for public discourse. Many on this list (commendably)
feel personally invested in the fate of the commons, and chafe at perceived
democratic shortcomings in this process, but the fact that public debate 
exists
at all should not be overlooked. 

best,
Zach Chandler

> 1. require attribution
> 
> 2. disallow commercial uses
> 
> 3. allow only uses primarily and purposively intended to facilitate learning
> 
> 4. require that modified works - if distributed -  be distributed under 
> the same license
> 
> 5. require that modified works - if distributed - be distributed with a 
> mechanism for determining what changes have been made to the original
> 
> 6. allow use by anyone whose use meets the above guidelines regardless 
> of affiliation
> 
> 7. provide an option which allows the licensor to restrict use to 
> individuals affiliated with an educational institution only
> 
> 8. expand 7. above to include individuals affiliated with non-profit 
> organizations with primarily educational missions in addition to 
> individuals affiliated with educational institutions


==================================
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