Open Content Licensing/Project plan

Record of virtual meetings

 * Agenda and minutes - 26 October 2010

Brainstorm list
Status: Active

Please add your thoughts, ideas and suggestions for the project. (Remember to sign your contribution).


 * To maximise reuse, develop materials using the Creative Commons Attribution Resource --Wayne Mackintosh 06:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that those who say they truly wish to maximize reuse should be advised to develop materials using a public domain dedication and/or Creative Commons CC0 waiver. --SteveFoerster 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is "maximising reuse" the goal? Or, do we still need to grow the commons, incentivise contribution/participation and support the values associated with open education and libre knowledge? See discussion exercise which favours CC-BY-SA . - Kim Tucker 13:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Kim, I think both perspectives are valid and can easily be accommodated in the spirit of modelling freedom of choice, namely giving free choice to creators to decide whether they wish to respect the freedoms for downstream remixers or the future freedoms of the content (commons). Once the course materials are completed -- its is easy enough to re-license a digital copy of the materials under a copyleft alternative and in this way we are able to meet the needs of both sides of the free cultural works spectrum. --Wayne Mackintosh 23:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Best not to dictate license choice, provide resources, case study reflections to assist educators in making an informed choice --Wayne Mackintosh 06:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Should it cover just licensing of contents, or should it also include reusing of licensed contents? TomoWatanabe 15:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi TomoWatanabe-- That's a good point -- I think the resources should include reuse and corresponding guidelines on proper citation of CC resources and compatibility among the CC licenses. --Wayne Mackintosh 19:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Explaining reuse is a must! Mike Linksvayer 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Showing clear examples would help licensors and reusers. For example, what is the set of information you should include when licensing your work with a CC Attribution license? How would it be treated by reusers? Answering those questions with clear examples would help readers license their contents. TomoWatanabe 15:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed -- great suggestion. --Wayne Mackintosh 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is something Open.Michigan has started creating in the form of a casebook (see Open Content Licensing/Existing resources) that is still very much a work in progress but is also being translated into other languages/jurisdictions. Epuckettrodgers 20:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A concise statement of the "why not NC?" argument for OER, maybe as an FAQ or a short article --Dkernohan 14:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like the us to tackle how one can reformat/rewrite copyrighted material such that it doesn't infringe on the original. When is this appropriate (if ever)? For example, an example in a copyrighted statistics book is based on an openly available research study. Is reuse of the example (if it's not taken verbatim from the text) a violation of copyright? --Alison Snieckus 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point -- we need to address this in the materials. As an education project, properly referenced quotations of all rights reserved work for the purpose of review and critique would fall within the ambit of fair use / fair dealing imho. The grey area is how much constitutes fair dealing in countries which include this exclusion in their national copyright legislation and whether or not they are signatories of the Berne Convention. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works) --Wayne Mackintosh 04:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Another area I'm shaky on is whether it's allowable to use screenprints of proprietary software. How can we provide OER instruction in the use of proprietary programs? --Alison Snieckus 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * mmm this is a grey area but I think we can push fair use / fair dealing. The approach we have been using in WikiEducator with regards to screenshots of proprietary software is to publish a clear indication in the metadata that the screenshot is all rights reserved (and used under fair dealing, for instance, to illustrate a feature of the software.) In reality OERs to provide training on closed software will inevitably include all-rights reserved screenshots -- but I don't see corporates pursuing indirect marketing of their products. Should we receive a cease and desist request -- we would definitely remove the image. Ultimately I'm hoping that we might get a little pro-bono time from copyright lawyers to read over our materials as part of the quality review process. --Wayne Mackintosh 04:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, remixing is the most powerful  demonstration /implementation of the freedom associated with cc licensed content. How can we prepare a simple matrix to easily show what can be mixed together under what circumstances, and what license would be applicable to the derivative work? Anil Prasad 16:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Anil, good suggestion -- we will definitely need to cover remix compatibility among licenses. Creative Commons Taiwan have developed a Compatibility Wizard and with a little pedagogical support and guidance, this can be a powerful tool. --Wayne Mackintosh 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also this chart in the CC FAQ: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#If_I_use_a_Creative_Commons-licensed_work_to_create_a_new_work_.28ie_a_derivative_work_or_adaptation.29.2C_which_Creative_Commons_license_can_I_use_for_my_new_work.3F --Jane Park 13:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Incorporated into the compatibility subsection --Wayne Mackintosh 07:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Add your thought here

Intended target audience

 * Teachers, lecturers or trainers working in the formal education sector --Wayne Mackintosh 02:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Incorporated into the design and development. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume no knowledge of Creative Commons Licensing -- i.e. beginners insofar as Creative Commons Licensing is concerned --Wayne Mackintosh 02:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Incorporated into the design and development. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this is important. That suggests that the default should be to ask them questions about what they would permit rather than provide them a list of licenses/waivers and expect them to read them all before deciding. --SteveFoerster 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto -- Using educational values as a point of departure is a sensible approach. Lets start from the education perspective and culture of permissions rather than confusing with a plethora of complex legal restrictions. --Wayne Mackintosh 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Implemented -- Introduced a fair and reasonableness survey as introductory activity in the first unit. --Wayne Mackintosh 03:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, very much like http://creativecommons.org/choose -- one approach would be to explain each of the choices in an educational context. Mike Linksvayer 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah -- this will be a tough one to address. There are two camps: Those that support free cultural works licensing and those that advocate free choice of license. Its complex debate. I suggest we adopt a NPOV approach presenting a fair and objective summary of these positions thus enabling educators to take their own decisions. Thoughts? Wayne Mackintosh 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Assume an international audience (i.e. multiple jurisdictions and materials must be sufficiently generic for different countries.) --Wayne Mackintosh 02:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Skip jurisdiction altogether, just use unported. Mike Linksvayer 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yip, agree. At this level we should avoid jurisdictional complications and focus on the unported licenses. Wayne Mackintosh 23:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Sorted -- Creative Commons unplugged unit is based on the unported licenses with a brief reference to ported license and compatibility with the unported licenses. --Wayne Mackintosh 07:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Create multi-tiered resources for use: introductory resources to novices (i.e. beginners); medium-level detailed for those who are familiar with CC licenses but may not understand the nuances; resources that point to detailed levels of explanation and jurisdiction Epuckettrodgers 20:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Inventory of existing resources we can remix for the project
Status: Completed


 * Help us identify existing resources which will be suitable for reuse/remix for our project by adding these to our inventory table
 * Focus on materials currently licensed as CC-BY or materials which could easily be re-licensed as CC-BY-SA without unnecessary delays.
 * Prioritise materials which are available in editable file formats or resources where we can easily obtain source files for modification.

Review reuse potential of the inventory of existing resources and identify gaps
Status: Completed

High level review completed in conjunction with mappings to proposed course outline.

Develop table of contents for the resources
Status: Completed


 * See Course outline

Remix and drafting of material
Status: In progress


 * Phase 1: Tentative outline specifying sections and subsections
 * Phase 2: Set up pages and navigation templates in the wiki
 * Phase 3: First draft of materials available for edit and review

Review and refine draft resources
Status: In progress - Units now available for review:


 * Creative Commons unplugged
 * Educators care: Why open matters?
 * Copyright: Your educational right to copy

Instructions: Process and guidelines

There are three review categories: Content validity, Language edit, and Layout and design


 * If you can help with one or more of the review categories, add your username in the relevant column so we know who is working on each section.
 * When you have completed the review for a full unit, write "completed" and sign in the status column, for example: Completed --Wayne Mackintosh 01:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Before commencing each edit session consult most recent version of the style guidelines for the Language edit and the Layout and design
 * Feel free to add guidelines to the style guideline pages above as you progress.
 * Obvious typos, factual errors etc -- be bold make the change directly in the wiki.
 * More substantive queries and suggestions -- add your thoughts on the corresponding talk page.
 * Its a good idea to add each page you are working on to your watch list to facilitate automated emails for pages you are interested in. Set up your preferences as follows:
 * Read item 10 on how to set your email preferences.
 * Check that your email is authenticated on the My preferences page
 * On your My preferences page, click on the "Gadgets" tab and check the "LQTemail: enable email on thread postings/edits" -- this will send html emails of Liquid thread discussion postings of the wiki pages on your watch list.

Design workshop outline and workshop portal page
Status: Completed

Launch pilot offering of the "Choosing and open content license" workshop
Status: Completed

To do list

 * 1) Fix wording of the WP citation template -- see: http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Wp_copyright_quote_%281%29#lqt_thread_16040 Done --Wayne Mackintosh 23:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Check course pages for svg images (don't display in IE) and substitute with alternate formats.
 * Have started doing this for course 1 on "Educators are: Why open matters". --Patricia Schlicht 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) CC unplugged module: create activity to use public domain tool Due to learner workload issues -- we opted not to include this. --Wayne Mackintosh 01:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) CC unplugged module: create  activity to use CC search tool. Deferred to later development for a module on how to compose and create OER.
 * Might be useful to add an additional page to this module about the CC tools --Alison Snieckus 01:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC) see above

OCL4Ed12.01 Feedback

 * Comment from Noeline Wright "We were asked to introduce ourselves earlier, so repeating stuff seems a bit redundant. I'm also not sure why engaging in a discussion about vocation or profession is anything I want to spend my time commenting on, given that this course is about Open Content, and, I assume, its value in education." For future consideration:
 * participants are asked in two separate forums to introduce themselves--seems repetitive. [DONE...prior to OCL4Ed12.06]
 * review responses and conversation around vocation/profession activity. [Decided to keep this activity for OCL4ED12.06 as many found it worthy.]

OCL4Ed12.06 Feedback

 * Comment from Kathleen Stone in Open Forum "It would be interesting to do this {fair and reasonable practice} survey again at the end to see if responses would be different after completing the course :)....{What questions do you suggest repeating?}....I was thinking the questions that ask about how we would share. After learning so much about SA and NC I think it would be interesting to see if anyone changed their mind. Questions 11-30 ssem to touch on those concepts."
 * Consider whether it would be useful to repeat questions in course evaluation.