development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[David Wiley <david.wiley AT gmail.com>]

On Apr 4, 2005 12:26 PM, Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> wrote:
> > MOST faculty I know express similar feelings. They don't mind their
> > material being shared, they just don't want it being sold.

Yes, this is my first hand experience here evangelizing USU OCW with
our faculty.

> On the other hand, if you're not afraid of some commercial
> entitiy coming in and restricting your work in some way,
> if you or some other teacher wants to restrict commercial
> use of the work so that they can get money from the publisher,
> then that's your choice as well. But a NonCommercial license
> doesn't strike me as qualifying for the label "Education",
> since education means teacher/student, and teacher/student
> usually means tuition, and tuition violates the noncommercial
> restriction.

This is simply not true, as evidenced by MIT OCW proudly and
frequently showing slides (as they did this past Friday at the UCEA
conference) indicating the huge percentage of faculty who report using
MIT OCW materials (i.e., By-NC-SA materials) in their on-campus,
for-credit, courses. This is one of MIT's primary goals (adoption and
use of MIT materials by faculty at other programs), and they and their
Legal Counsel adopted By-NC-SA. While I (like most participating on
this list) am not a lawyer, to say that By-NC-SA does not permit use
in for-credit courses on other campus is to disagree with over $40M in
resources spent on the OCW project at MIT, an appropriate amount of it
on the legal side. You are free to disagree with their interpretation;
however, I have to believe their interpretation to be correct. The
success of the whole initiative hinges on them getting the license
choice right. And I've done enough work with them to feel confident
that they did.

D