Comments on: Creative Commons vs MIT OCW: Interpreting the Noncommercial Clause http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307 pragmatism over zeal Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:59:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David F. Flanders http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307/comment-page-1#comment-34017 David F. Flanders Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:12:07 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307#comment-34017 So how do I tell my lecturers in a short and snappy way what NC will mean for their content?! So how do I tell my lecturers in a short and snappy way what NC will mean for their content?!

]]> By: Raquel http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307/comment-page-1#comment-33865 Raquel Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:01:17 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307#comment-33865 I completely agree with Steve: "best practices" are not mandatory. And although it makes perfect sense that the Creative Commons "best practices" prefer to approach the issue with prudence, on "the safe side", authors may have (and establish) their own understanding of what is commercial. In fact, each author might have a different meaning for what is commercial and what is not, depending on his work and on the kind of exploitation he has envisioned for it. Of course, this may not do too much good in terms of compatibility among licenses (even among one same license), but this is usually the problem with standard licensing terms... Failing specific language set by the author, the "best practices" may help interpret the meaning of the terms of the license, but when the author makes clear what he means by commercial, his will should prevail over the "best practices". Maybe the licenses will have to afford more options for the author to "fine-tune" the meaning of non-commercial (click on several options), so that the meaning is embeded in the license (instead of as a best practice)... But once again, the more difficult it would become in terms of compatibility, right? I guess there's no easy way out! I completely agree with Steve: “best practices” are not mandatory. And although it makes perfect sense that the Creative Commons “best practices” prefer to approach the issue with prudence, on “the safe side”, authors may have (and establish) their own understanding of what is commercial. In fact, each author might have a different meaning for what is commercial and what is not, depending on his work and on the kind of exploitation he has envisioned for it. Of course, this may not do too much good in terms of compatibility among licenses (even among one same license), but this is usually the problem with standard licensing terms… Failing specific language set by the author, the “best practices” may help interpret the meaning of the terms of the license, but when the author makes clear what he means by commercial, his will should prevail over the “best practices”.
Maybe the licenses will have to afford more options for the author to “fine-tune” the meaning of non-commercial (click on several options), so that the meaning is embeded in the license (instead of as a best practice)… But once again, the more difficult it would become in terms of compatibility, right? I guess there’s no easy way out!

]]> By: OLDaily[中文版] » Blog Archive » 2007å¹´2月14æ—¥ http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307/comment-page-1#comment-33864 OLDaily[中文版] » Blog Archive » 2007å¹´2月14æ—¥ Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:15:25 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307#comment-33864 [...] Ack. David Wiley, iterating toward openness February 14, 2007 [链接] [...] [...] Ack. David Wiley, iterating toward openness February 14, 2007 [链接] [...]

]]> By: anders http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307/comment-page-1#comment-33846 anders Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:40:09 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307#comment-33846 Quandary! I have found myself in that situation several times - I have found good material on the web that I would like to share with my students. However, the material was published under the NC restriction and I teach at a for-profit college, but I would use the material for educational purposes and I wouldn't charge my students for it. What do I do? Up until now I have refrained from using NC material. David and Steve - can I now assume using material from MIT OCW is OK, but not material from other sites with the same NC license??? Quandary! I have found myself in that situation several times – I have found good material on the web that I would like to share with my students. However, the material was published under the NC restriction and I teach at a for-profit college, but I would use the material for educational purposes and I wouldn’t charge my students for it. What do I do? Up until now I have refrained from using NC material. David and Steve – can I now assume using material from MIT OCW is OK, but not material from other sites with the same NC license???

]]> By: 教育中文翻译 » OLDaily[中文版]ï¼?2007å¹´2月13æ—¥ http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307/comment-page-1#comment-33837 教育中文翻译 » OLDaily[中文版]ï¼?2007å¹´2月13æ—¥ Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:24:01 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307#comment-33837 [...] Ack. David Wiley, iterating toward openness February 14, 2007 [链接] [...] [...] Ack. David Wiley, iterating toward openness February 14, 2007 [链接] [...]

]]> By: Steve Carson http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307/comment-page-1#comment-33829 Steve Carson Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:46:46 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307#comment-33829 I think the answer to your quandary lies in the title of the CC excerpt, "proposed best practices." The CC guidelines are not part of the official license, and so wouldn't apply in a court case. The very nature of "best practices" implies it is up to the practitioner to further define non-commercial, as we've done based on five years of practice in sharing our materials. Our experience obviously lead us down a different path, but so far all the supposed hazards have been hypothetical, and in practice we've found most users are quite diligent and conscientious about making sure their uses of our materials are appropriate. Of the 150,000 or so visitors who come to our site each month, maybe one or two will e-mail to ask an appropriate use question. I'm sure there are more who don't ask, and some who knowingly use the materials inappropriately (which we do address when we discover), but on the whole, the license seems to do exactly what we'd hoped it would I think the answer to your quandary lies in the title of the CC excerpt, “proposed best practices.” The CC guidelines are not part of the official license, and so wouldn’t apply in a court case. The very nature of “best practices” implies it is up to the practitioner to further define non-commercial, as we’ve done based on five years of practice in sharing our materials.

Our experience obviously lead us down a different path, but so far all the supposed hazards have been hypothetical, and in practice we’ve found most users are quite diligent and conscientious about making sure their uses of our materials are appropriate. Of the 150,000 or so visitors who come to our site each month, maybe one or two will e-mail to ask an appropriate use question. I’m sure there are more who don’t ask, and some who knowingly use the materials inappropriately (which we do address when we discover), but on the whole, the license seems to do exactly what we’d hoped it would

]]>