David Wiley posts a survey on what should a Creative Commons Educational Use License include.
Options are: (a) authorship (b) copyleft ( c) non-commercial uses (d) formal education uses (e) educational and research uses.
I guess I disagree with most people, who see clear non-commercial uses is a must and formal education uses is too restrictive. In my opinion, this is wanting this license to do more things than intended.
My point focuses on education, and this is the word. I try and forget all other issues.
In education, it is important who says what, so
c) formal education environment
are musts just because they guarantee there’s a true commitment with education.
Copyleft? Well, if you want it copylefted you can use some other kind of license.
Commercial? Why not? I mean, this is not the most important thing. The “general” educational use license should have both options: commercial and non-commercial
As for (e) I find it too general and (d) brings the appropriate context and excludes (e).
What i mean is that there already exist other kind of licenses to fit less restrictive uses. Some people say main focus should be copyleft and non-formal educational uses (such as self-study): ok, use another Creative Commons License – no need to have all licenses doing the same.
My 2 cents. Hope no one felt attacked – far my intention :)
If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:
Peña-López, I. (2003) “What is “educational use”? [@ autounfocus]” In ICTlogy,
#3, December 2003. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from http://ictlogy.net/review/?p=39