Sort out an open licensing scheme for content

[ehmatthes]

The source code for Open Competencies is released under the AGPL, but there is nothing on the site at this point about licensing the actual content.

Probably need to choose a Creative Commons license that ensures the actual standards created are open, and make it clear to contributors that they must agree to make their work open.

[lyndsysimon]

Why a copyleft license? Would you be opposed to the MIT or CC0 licenses?

I ask because a GPL-compatible license severely limits what can be done with the code. For instance: If a company wanted to pick up the project and use it as a basis for an internal Learning Management System, they could not do so without opening the source to their entire system. That's almost certainly not going to happen, so neither party benefits.

Contrast that to the same project licensed under CC0, where the worst case is that the company benefits by incorporating your work. More likely, they would be entering issues and perhaps contributing patches to fix things as they went, benefiting both parties.

[ehmatthes]

I am certainly not stuck on the AGPL. I am so wary of profit-focused education companies, I wanted to start out AGPL, knowing I could follow up with a less restrictive license if it seemed more appropriate.

I think I will quickly move towards an MIT license for the code. I like the idea of people using the project in different ways, and contributing back to this project. If this does become a high-quality project, I like the thought of supporting quality within all educational offerings, free or proprietary.

What about content licensing? I am less familiar with licensing user-generated content. One of my long-term goals has been to develop a clean API, with the goal of supporting higher quality in both free and open and commercial educational products. Do you think the decision on the content license would have much effect on the way people think about using the site?

[lyndsysimon]

I am certainly not stuck on the AGPL. I am so wary of profit-focused education companies, I wanted to start out AGPL, knowing I could follow up with a less restrictive license if it seemed more appropriate.

No worries - that's my own biases showing through. I'm profit-oriented pretty much all the way, so the idea of someone making money off of my work doesn't bother or scare me. In fact, I'd prefer it, because it means I'm helping build a community where it is acceptable for me to profit from their code in the future.

I will point out that it isn't as simple as slapping a more permissive license on it in the future, once you get other developers on board. Their work will be AGPL as well, and you won't hold copyright on it to change it to another license. If you decide to, you'll have to contact each of them, and get permission. What if one is dead? You'll have to find out if they have an estate, etc. It's a mess.

To avoid this, you could have all contributors agree that their code will be licensed under the same license as the project, that this license may change, and that you have the authority to change that license at will.

I think I will quickly move towards an MIT license for the code. I like the idea of people using the project in different ways, and contributing back to this project. If this does become a high-quality project, I like the thought of supporting quality within all educational offerings, free or proprietary.

If you're MIT-licensed, I don't believe there is anything stopping you from moving to another license. Code that was in the wild before the change would remain under that license; otherwise you'd be good to go.

What about content licensing? I am less familiar with licensing user-generated content. One of my long-term goals has been to develop a clean API, with the goal of supporting higher quality in both free and open and commercial educational products.

The simplest thing to do is state that everything created on the site is CC0. That way, even if someone penetrated your server, downloaded all the content and put it up on a torrent site you're free and clear - no user data would have been compromised. You could still have privacy settings in this context, but they'd only hide content from search and other means of discoverability, not from access.

The next best thing would be to make sure you have a damn good EULA releasing you from liability, then educate your users on a set of licenses that they could use. Perhaps offer the CC-series licenses and the ability to upload a license of their own.

Do you think the decision on the content license would have much effect on the way people think about using the site?

Yes, I do - and perhaps a negative one in the end.

If content is by default open, you note that, and the ability to close it is either a couple of clicks deep in settings or not present, the vast majority of users are going to leave it open. That will result in more public documents, surely. If you ask them up-front about licensing you'll get them thinking about it and they will understand it better - but a larger number of them will choose to close their work.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that users should be mislead whatsoever. I'm merely saying that presenting them with a choice will force them to make a choice. Making it optional will support those users who want to remain private, but will help create a perceived social expectation of openness from the start.

[ehmatthes]

No worries - that's my own biases showing through. I'm profit-oriented pretty much all the way, so the idea of someone making money off of my work doesn't bother or scare me. In fact, I'd prefer it, because it means I'm helping build a community where it is acceptable for me to profit from their code in the future.

My perspective on profit-making is affected by watching so much money get drained from public education funds, for ventures that do not benefit all students.

I will point out that it isn't as simple as slapping a more permissive license on it in the future, once you get other developers on board. Their work will be AGPL as well, and you won't hold copyright on it to change it to another license. If you decide to, you'll have to contact each of them, and get permission. What if one is dead? You'll have to find out if they have an estate, etc. It's a mess.

I really appreciate you pointing this out. I was not clear on this at all, although it sounds familiar now that you spell it out. I was thinking that as the project originator, I could change the license to a less restrictive one at any time.

The next best thing would be to make sure you have a damn good EULA releasing you from liability, then educate your users on a set of licenses that they could use. Perhaps offer the CC-series licenses and the ability to upload a license of their own.

I am inclined to choose one license for all content on the site, rather than allowing individual users to choose different licenses for their own systems. I am inclined to state that all content created on the site is released under a cc license that allows people to freely borrow from each other's work within the site. Users from outside the site would have to attribute the content to Open Competencies, but would be free to modify the content for their own use as well.

If content is by default open, you note that, and the ability to close it is either a couple of clicks deep in settings or not present, the vast majority of users are going to leave it open. That will result in more public documents, surely. If you ask them up-front about licensing you'll get them thinking about it and they will understand it better - but a larger number of them will choose to close their work.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that users should be mislead whatsoever. I'm merely saying that presenting them with a choice will force them to make a choice. Making it optional will support those users who want to remain private, but will help create a perceived social expectation of openness from the start.

I have no interest whatsoever in misleading people into accepting a certain license. I intend to choose a license for all content on the site, make that license clear, and give people clear choices about how visible their content is.

[ehmatthes]

Proposal: MIT license for Open Competencies source code

Reason: Encourage more widespread use of Open Competencies, while bringing improvements back to the codebase and ecosystem.

[ehmatthes]

Proposal: All site content licensed under either CC-BY (Attribution) or CC-BY-SA (Attribution-Share Alike) license.

Reasoning: Other CC licenses do not allow commercial use of the content, and I'd actually like to see commercial use of the content. If we develop a strong set of standards, I would love for commercial tools and resources to be based on these standards. That argues pretty quickly for the CC-BY (Attribution) license, which allows modification and commercial use but does not require redistribution under the same license.

I am opposed at this point to putting all content in the public domain. It seems good to build Open Competencies' reputation for a number of reasons. The more people see the name, the more it is respected as a potential source of strong standards. Open education resources can also remain unnoticed for long periods of time, and if someone is using these standards it seems good to show people where they came from.