The Argument for using a CC-BY License
Creative Commons offers six types of licenses and two public domain tools. The use of the CC-BY licenses ensures that high-quality resources created with public funds are fully shared with the public, which in turn ensures equal access to teachers, students, and the public regardless of location or background.
Creative Commons offers six licenses that range from a very unrestrictive license (CC-BY) to a very restrictive license (CC BY-NC-ND). One benefit to the CC-BY 4.0 license is the attribution requirement. Anyone reusing the work must identify the author, the URL or unique identifier where the work can be accessed, pointing to the license that was used. There is also the requirement for the licensee to indicate if the work has been modified from the original version. Lastly, CC-BY 4.0 grants sui generis database rights in those areas that recognize these requirements.
Use of CC-BY License by Governmental Agencies
Several U.S. agencies are moving to require the CC-BY 4.0 license requirement for federal grants to ensure equal access to publicly funded resources, along with a move to implement a government-wide policy to openly license federally funded educational materials. These agencies include the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and State, along with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In addition, non-profit foundations such as the Hewlett Foundation and the Gates Foundation, and journal article publishing venues like BioMed Central and SpringerOpen are moving towards adoption of the CC-BY 4.0 license requirement.
Use of Restrictive Licenses to Prevent Commercialization
Many authors new to OER tend to gravitate to the very restrictive CC licenses (e.g. -NC & -ND) in an attempt to preserve the “openness” of the content. The argument often ends up being something like, “I don’t want someone to make money off my content.” This seems like a valid and sound reason, except that situation where a publisher takes open material and resells it is unlikely to happen. Users of open content are not going to pay for materials that they can download for free. It doesn’t take long for someone trying to sell open material to be recognized for their actions and called out as such.
One issue with using an –NC or an –ND license is that the content cannot be used in combination with some of the other of licenses. Some are incompatible. Any new content generated has to contain the most restrictive license of the original (if that license even allows remixing with new content), which further enhances the incompatibility issues. Overtime, the content eventually narrows down to the most restrictive license possible, which then ends any ability for remixing and re-purposing.
What are the issues with using an –NC license?
They make your work incompatible with a growing body of free content, even if you do want to allow derivative works or combinations.
They may rule out other basic and beneficial uses which you want to allow.
They are unlikely to increase the potential profit from your work, and a share-alike license serves the goal to protect your work from unethical exploitation equally well.
For programs that receive government funding (State or Federal) to produce OER, the goal is to maximize access to and re-use of OER paid for with public dollars. It is in the government’s (and program’s) best interest to use the most permissive license to allow the most users of the OER.
Content with an –BY-NC-SA license cannot be combined with a –BY-SA, Share Alike Means Share Alike. Content must be redistributed under the same, compatible license, which means that open content can be subjected to further restrictive licenses as works are re-purposed.
In the spirit of open resources, making the resources available to anyone, anywhere, and at no cost IS the essence of the OER movement. The more your resources are re-purposed and reused, the more exposure your material receives and the wider audience your material reaches.
