development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[David <davidpalmer AT westnet.com.au>]

Robert Stephenson wrote:

> Greg London wrote:
>
> > > For every hour that her class spends using open course content,
> > > the teacher and/or her students owe an hour’s time
> > > (contributing to the project)
> > >      
I'm aware of the average teacher's schedule, and I know exactly how much 
chance you have of this occurring.

> > >    
> >
> > well, you say this is a "moral" obligation, not a "legal"
> > obligation, which begs the question as to why you would
> > then put it in a legal license?
> >
> > I have a hard time seeing how it would be legally enforcable,
> > so it might be made null and void anyway.
> >
> > If it isn't a legally binding clause, then you could simply
> > slap it on the work as a "moral" clause that contains no
> > legal bearing, and still say the work is CC licensed.
> >  
> This is probably naive, but I would look to the license to tell me the 
> conditions of use for the licensed item, and I wouldn't care a lot 
> about the distinction between moral and legal clauses.

Laudable, and exceptional.

> > I think that wikipedia has shown that you need to make
> > the tools so that editing a single word is extremely easy,
> > which will then encourage the many small additions you speak of.
> > Wikipedia could have attempted a moral clause, but it didn't.
> > instead it used a simple GPL license and pasted a "moral"
> > clause throughout saying: "Anyone may edit this page".
> >  
> Good point.  There are two important differences, though:
> 1- The  license  I am suggesting is directed at educators in a 
> particular discipline, physiologists let us say.  They are several 
> orders of magnitude less numerous than the audience for a typical 
> Wikipedia article (and, perhaps, busier).

Build it, and they will come.
The comparison with Wikipedia I don't feel has application.
As you point out, the sociological environment is totally different, and 
with the more specialised audience/contributor base, the input may well 
be of a lesser volume, but with the accent on specialised content and 
the 'peer review' format, it will grow.

> 2- Good, reusable material for teaching generally requires many 
> different skills and results from a collaboration of  several 
> individuals.  In contrast, many (most?) wikipedia articles have only 
> one principal author.

Yes, but with the potential to be edited by many.

> So the participation (giveback) rate for a project developing 
> educational materials has to be orders of magnitude higher than for 
> wikipedia if that project is to be self-sustaining.  That's why 
> giveback need to be, not an  opportunity, not an invitation, but an 
> obligation.

Cart before the horse.
Imposed obligation is always resented.
Create the community, and the social obligation creates itself, as the 
means of social acceptance.

> This is borne out by experience.  The Merlot digital library has, 
> since its inception, offered educators the opportunity to comment on 
> the usefulness of any of its learning materials.  Fewer than 2% of 
> their materials have _EVER_ received a comment.  My own experience 
> with the Harvey Project is similar.

That's because it's the wrong strategy.
Regards,

David Palmer.