[Foundation-l] Open teaching materials in the Netherlands

Dedalus dedalus at wikipedia.be
Tue May 19 20:03:04 UTC 2009

Ziko wrote:

"Nearly all already existing initiatives for open teaching materials use the
CC-NC-SA, the Creative Commons license that prohibits commercial use. I was
told that you cannot explain to teachers why others should have the right to
commercially exploit their work..."

What a great news! All those wat too expensive school teachers that
are a burden to the Dutch taxpayer voluntarily move to become
volunteer teachers. Please pass the champaign on this. Let's

Where is Mike Godwin our legal counselor. I really need a terrier
preparing a big law suit on this. Just in case a single teacher would
have the guts to accept a pay check while using CC-NC-SA material in

Why? That is my interpretation of 'commercial': making directly money
while using the material. Article 4c of CC-NC-SA is very clear about
this: "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in
Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or
directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary
compensation." Even Dutch teachers can be instructed to read aloud the
last three words "private monetary compensation."

So far, so good for the first part of the defense, thank you Mike.
That was only the part concerning the selfish and myopic Dutch
teachers. Now for the second part, to open their eyes. Primary and
secondary education might perform a whole range of goals, and a tiny
little one of them is to prepare kids for a future role as income
earning participants in society (deliberately not specifying in which
way). Having been educated with CC-NC-SA materials those poor kids
will not be allowed to make any money with the knowledge thus
gathered. This contradicts at least one of the primary goals of

What the Dutch teachers want sounds all too much like wanting to get
direct monetary compensation at the taxpayers expense up front for
creating the teaching materials *and* failing to deliver the materials
(distribute it to who paid for it, the taxpayers, that is the public
at large, so distribute it freely) *and* looking for ways to collect
royalties without repaying the expenses paid up front.

A great counter example is the image project. The WMF has paid for the
creation of content (imagery) with the explicition condition the
material is freely licensed. If the Dutch minister is going to pay 385
million euro annually for the creation of content without requiring
the material to be freely licensed, he is f***ing nuts.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list