development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

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

Sean Rugge wrote:

> In the private sector I could see this being the case...but in the 
> public sector it would set a dangerous precedent for public funds used 
> for prohibiting material from being used non-commercially/shared among 
> colleagues...and how could one district prohibit sharing with another 
> when they are all part of the Dept of Ed?

The definition of the situation lies within the 'employer/employee' 
status, and not whether it is private or public employment, as stated 
here...

http://www.leadingedgelaw.com/copyright.shtml

...under 'Rules for Who Owns Copyright'.

Although there have been a couple of cases where the edges have been 
well and truly blurred.

In one example, an employee had created a new technique for reverse 
engineering software programmes, - had done it in his own time, at 
night, and not during normal work hours.
Because he worked somewhat haphazardly, quite often coming up with ideas 
at home and working there at night as programmers are wont to do, the 
company claimed that the idea was actually theirs, sued, and won.

Although this was a patent situation, where patents lead, copyright 
tends to follow.

Software is a medium for information and should never be patented for 
that reason.
Who owns the patent on books?

>  
> A bit nonsensical if you ask me...and just a prime example of the 
> absurdity of the concept of intellectual ownership, which seems to be 
> sweeping the globe.
>  
> The goal of the site is for teachers to share with one another the 
> materials they create.

Yes, but the greed of the few will continue to starve the many.
Regards,

David.