{"id":1132,"date":"2007-10-19T19:04:33","date_gmt":"2007-10-19T19:04:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.designedtoinspire.com\/blog\/open-ed-week-7-licensing-open-educational-resources\/"},"modified":"2026-11-11T22:04:37","modified_gmt":"2026-11-12T03:04:37","slug":"open-ed-week-7-licensing-open-educational-resources","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.designedtoinspire.com\/blog\/open-ed-week-7-licensing-open-educational-resources\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Ed – Week 7: Licensing Open Educational Resources"},"content":{"rendered":"

Based on the readings and assignment for week 7 in the
\nIntroduction
\nto Open Education<\/a> …<\/p>\n

As I noted at the end of
\nmy
\npost last week<\/a>, it is likely that most supporters of the OER movement feel
\nthe more “open” the work, the greater the value. Further, I agree with Brian
\nLamb’s observation
\nduring
\nhis 2007 Open Ed keynote<\/a> that when a person sees a CC at the bottom of a
\npage, he or she likely thinks … “oh, that guy is not a jerk” and considers the
\nwork freely available to use, modify and re-use as he or she sees fit.
\nUnfortunately, this misinterpretation can lead to potential nasty repercussions.
\nHowever, how often does this misinterpretation come into play? Do the variations
\nin license provisions impact how users actually use content? To answer these
\nquestions, it is necessary to consider how open content is used and how this use
\nis affected by open content licensing.<\/p>\n

Open Content Use: <\/i><\/b>To this point, almost everything I have read
\nabout the open education movement is written from the perspective of the content
\nproducers – the ones putting out content for others to use. Just as they
\nconsider what repository will be best, they consider what license will be best.
\nHowever, the questions this week begin to shift the focus to what license is
\nbest for users<\/u><\/i><\/b> of the content. More specifically, what
\nlicense provisions best support the users of open content? What follows is based
\non my assumption of how open content is used and how the various license
\nprovisions impact that use. These assumptions are based solely on how I image
\nhow open content is used based on my experience and the stories that
\nwere shared in hallway chats with content producers at the OpenEd conference –
\nobviously a biased and unscientifically derived viewpoint. However, at this
\npoint, I am not aware of any other measures of use.
\n
\n<\/b><\/i>It appears to me that producers of open content may be off the mark in
\ntheir assumptions of how learners use their content. It is my interpretation
\nthat most producers of content think users will approach the material in the
\nsame manner as students in a class … digest all of the material in a syllabus,
\nread all of the content, take the exercises, etc. Further, many people envision
\nthe possibilities of mash-ups that create amazing new derivative works. However,
\nI am not convinced that is how users actually use these works. In hallway chats
\nwith the good folks at the UK Open University, they noted that the vast majority
\nof hits to their Open Ed site come from Google searches where people are
\nsearching for content and find the Open University course material. Users spend
\na few minutes on the site and then are off to other places.<\/p>\n

It appears to me (from my admittedly biased and unscientific “research”) that
\nusers gather the content like squirrels gather nuts. The content is taken back
\nto the learners own environment (whether it be an informal or formal one) where
\nit is digested or stored. I doubt that the learner spends much time on the content
\nproducer’s site. They get what they want and they are gone  – back to the
\nden … er … learning environment to chew on what they gathered. Further,
\nI haven’t seen much evidence that suggests much slicing \/ dicing or derivative
\nworks are created from the open content. Instead, I feel the most likely use of open
\ncontent is “read only” access. Therefore, it appears that users are primarily
\nconcerned with access<\/i><\/b> to high quality freely available
\ninformation.<\/p>\n

The Key Licensing Provisions:<\/i><\/b> If my assumptions are correct and
\naccess is the primary concern of users, then how do the key Creative Commons
\nprovisions affect them? The following chart highlights four key provisions under
\nthe various Creative Commons and GFDL licenses. Through a review of various
\nworks and publications listed in the syllabus, as well as from recent blog posts
\nfrom
\nStephen
\nDownes<\/a> and
\nDavid
\nWiley<\/a>, I have summarized the following: 1) the paper napkin definitions of
\nthe Creative Commons provisions from the perspective of both the producer and
\nuser, 2) possible talking points in support of the provisions, and 3) possible
\ntalking points against the provisions.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n \n <\/td>\n\n Attribution\n <\/td>\n\n No Derivatives\n <\/td>\n\n Copy-left \/ Share Alike\n <\/td>\n\n Non-Commercial\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Paper napkin definition taken from the Creative Commons folks – 
\n cut and pasted directly
\n from
\n the CC FAQ<\/a> and the
\n abridged
\n definitions page<\/a>:\n <\/td>\n		\n As the creator: “You let others copy, distribute, display, and
\n perform your copyrighted work \u2014 and derivative works based upon it \u2014 but
\n only if they give credit the way you request.”<\/i><\/p>\n

As the user: “You must attribute the work in the manner specified by
\n the author or <\/i>licensor.”<\/i>\n <\/td>\n

\n As the creator: “You let others copy, distribute, display, and
\n perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based
\n upon it.”<\/i><\/p>\n

\n As the user: “You may only make verbatim copies of the work, you may
\n not adapt or change it.”<\/i>\n <\/td>\n

\n As the creator: “You allow others to distribute derivative works only
\n under a license identical to the license that governs your
\n work.”<\/i><\/p>\n

As the user: “You may only make derivative works if you license them
\n under the same Creative Commons license terms.”<\/i>\n <\/td>\n

\n As the creator: “You let others copy, distribute, display, and
\n perform your work \u2014 and derivative works based upon it \u2014 but for
\n noncommercial purposes only.”<\/i><\/p>\n

As the user: “You may not use the work in a manner primarily directed
\n toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.”<\/i>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n Those who say, “It makes sense to me” may also think …\n <\/td>\n\n
    \n
  • \n Give credit where credit is due.\n <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • \n My work in its entirety expresses my idea, so if it is messed with
    \n it is no longer my idea.\n <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • \n This keeps future works “open”.\n <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • \n Protects the open work from commercial evil-doers who will 
    \n re-distribute the work commercially and financially profit from
    \n another person’s efforts.\n <\/li>\n
  • \n Re-use of open works by commercial entities impairs the “openness”
    \n of the work as access is restricted to paying customers.\n <\/li>\n
  • \n Rules in practice are (and should be) different for corporate
    \n entities than individuals.\n <\/li>\n
  • \n Use of content by members of commercial entities is not the same as
    \n re-use and distribution by commercial entities.\n <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Those who say, “Ba-humbug – get rid of it” may also think …\n <\/td>\n\n
    \n
  • \n Who cares who created the original works? Attribution is just about
    \n vanity.\n <\/li>\n
  • \n Citation conventions include “credit” when the work is cited in
    \n academic papers.\n <\/li>\n
  • \n Attribution parameters are almost never clarified within the
    \n original work.\n <\/li>\n
  • \n What about derivative works? How many authors parts of parts must be
    \n attributed?\n <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • \n Not very open if you can’t do<\/u><\/i><\/b> anything with it.\n <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • \n Can’t remix with works of different licenses.\n <\/li>\n
  • \n Prohibits choice of downstream users.\n <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n