The OEO Logo and CC
UNESCO recently launched a new OER logo.
On 25/02/2012 9:19 PM, Cable Green wrote:
I really wonder whether this narrow interpretation is accurate and in the best interests of CC licensing generally.
With the logo as it is, I feel free to slap it on my OER contents, so long as they are OERs, pretty much no matter what CC license I use - CC-by-NC, CC-NC, whatever. Because they are all open educational resources (agitation by commercial entites to the contrary notwithstanding).
If I were a real stickler for the letter of the law (which I'm not) I would put an asterisk by the logo and ass the text at the bottom: * OER logo (cc) UNESCO CC-by-ND
What their license tells me is that (a) I can use it in this way, but (b) only if I don't replace the hands with smiley faces (or my corporate logo).
Suggesting that ND means I cannot attach it to anything seems to me to be a very narrow legalistic interpretation of ND. How can it be a derivative or of a logo to apply (without changes) it to what it is intended to designate?
Personally, I probably won't use the logo - I don't understand why it was created or what it is supposed to signify, exactly. But those who do choose to use the logo should not feel constrainted by a limitation only a lawyer could dream up. It's not a reasonable limitation, and UNESCO should not be forced to recognize such a limitation as fact.
On 25/02/2012 9:19 PM, Cable Green wrote:
UNESCO – please change the license from CC BY ND… to either CC BY … or CC BY SA… so we can all use it.
I really wonder whether this narrow interpretation is accurate and in the best interests of CC licensing generally.
With the logo as it is, I feel free to slap it on my OER contents, so long as they are OERs, pretty much no matter what CC license I use - CC-by-NC, CC-NC, whatever. Because they are all open educational resources (agitation by commercial entites to the contrary notwithstanding).
If I were a real stickler for the letter of the law (which I'm not) I would put an asterisk by the logo and ass the text at the bottom: * OER logo (cc) UNESCO CC-by-ND
What their license tells me is that (a) I can use it in this way, but (b) only if I don't replace the hands with smiley faces (or my corporate logo).
Suggesting that ND means I cannot attach it to anything seems to me to be a very narrow legalistic interpretation of ND. How can it be a derivative or of a logo to apply (without changes) it to what it is intended to designate?
Personally, I probably won't use the logo - I don't understand why it was created or what it is supposed to signify, exactly. But those who do choose to use the logo should not feel constrainted by a limitation only a lawyer could dream up. It's not a reasonable limitation, and UNESCO should not be forced to recognize such a limitation as fact.
To my mind, it is up to an individual to work out whether or not an artifact is an OER or not, depending on the licence and it's fitness for the intended purpose. If someone comes across something with a licence that says "you can use this" (perhaps with some restrictions spelled out in the licence), than no further invitation or information is required. The idea that we need a stamp of approval seems to run contrary to the very idea of a non-hierarchical, learner-centred approach.
ReplyDeleteMark McGuire
Good work on open source educational resources.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post and passion for this.
ReplyDelete