We recently had our open access event at the American University in Cairo, followed by a visit by Melanie Dulong from CNRS, who spoke about open data. In an informal discussion afterwards, we discussed the problems with a CC-BY-NC license. For people unfamiliar with the abbreviation, this means “Creative Commons, Attribution, Non-Commercial” (with no restrictions about derivatives or sharing alike). This also reminded me of a recent conversation I had with a professor of mind about open source. It also reminded me of a private conversation about academic books
My computer science professor was saying that teaching students to use open source was risky because if they ever later wanted to sell a product made using open source components, they would face litigation. I am not aware of details of how open source licenses work, but I assume there must be some sort of option for “share alike” and “non-commercial”, which also means there might be space for not insisting on “non-commercial” or “share alike”, in which case people would be free to use some open source components in something and later sell it (I think the ethics of this are murky and depend on how much of the components are open source, and how essential those components are to the final product – very murky).
However, I should think that working with open source should, in theory at least, encourage people to continue to create open source outputs, and to try to make money in different ways other than selling the software, such as selling support (as Moodle does), or training, or such. Would love to hear what others think.
Now, the conversation with Melanie went as follows. Some things (open data) are made with a “non-commercial” license, but then a university (a non-profit that fits the non-commercial description) wants to use the data, but their project is partly funded by a commercial entity. Where would that leave them?
My response there was as follows:
1. There is a difference between using something open access for another thing that involves commercial funding (ok with me), and using that open data for something that will be sold commercially (not ok with me, see below)
2. If all of us creating open access stuff allowed all others to make money out of using it, this could potentially mean profit-making organizations can lay back, stop making their own research, use data created by others, then use it to make profit (without paying the original data creators).
Now there’s something so wrong about that picture, right?
But hold on – that is exactly what commercial academic journals do!
They have authors, peer reviewers, who are academics funded possibly by non-profit universities, do all the hard work (or most of it, anyway) of doing research, writing it up, assessing its quality, and then the journal steps in and does some final polishing up (I hear this is substantial in some of the sciences, but it really isn’t in the social sciences) – and claim all the money for selling the article!
I recently invited someone to contribute to a book I am potentially editing. He is a big advocate of open access and said: they either make my work open access, or they pay me.
Man, that’s such an inspiring stance to take, especially if you are tenure-track (which I am not, but I think this person is)
Now… Thinking about all of the above, I checked out some of my favorite open access folks to check which licenses they used:
Hybrid Pedagogy has a CC-BY-NC license (yay!)
OCTEL (MOOC I am currently taking) is under CC-BY. Does that mean someone could possibly take the entire work, attribute it, and sell it as a book without giving any money to the authors? Is that really ok?
Blendkit2014 another MOOC I am taking has its material as CC-BY-SA. Does this mean that anyone re-using and remixing their material has to share “alike” in exact same license, BY-NC-SA? Or just some kind of open? I think the former, right? Which is why the “SA” license can be tricky.
So does this mean it is not ok for OCTEL to remix Blendkit’s content, or at least, when they do, to share that part as license, BY-NC-SA? (Yes, according to the license)
I also find the whole attribution thing for CC confusing, but Mike Caulfield tried to explain it here, but still confused.
I also understand the need for CC license to allow people to re-use stuff with attribution but without author permission (helps things move along faster) but have noticed lots of ppl on Flickr post stuff as CC but request courtesy of letting them know if you’ll re-use. Yes, it’s a hassle. But I totally get it – if someone’s gonna re-publish my article, I’d like to know (we’ve been through this one before). Incidentally,I couldn’t see the copyright/CC status of Mike’s blog 🙂 hidden somewhere? Same for Jim Groom‘s blog. Martin Weller’s is like mine (or to be more modest, mine is like his): CC-BY-NC-SA
I think SA (Share Alike) is a form of advocacy but I can see how it restricts reuse for some purposes. Still, it’s my favorite license. I should probably research this debate some more…