I did not realize, until today, that the SA permission was restricted to the exact license.

So if I put an NC licenses on my work, the SA is not necessary to require others to keep the NC when they share their derivatives of my work?

If you have an OER that is CC BY NC and someone uses your material and then adds their OWN work to that, as in their derivative of your work, then they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.So they would say something like this is a copy Heather Ross's OER as licensed as CC BY NC, new additions as authored by Amanda Coolidge are licensed as CC BY. Ultimately the stuff you create can't be sold, but the stuff I add to your work can be sold, if I allow it. If you add the SA to the end of your license then anything that I then add to the OER needs to be shared as you had initially- CC BY NC SA. This is one of the things we are getting clarification on from Paul Stacey, I will flag this as a question for our webinar.

Thanks. It seems that it might be complicated to determine where the line is between what you added and the original work. I don't want to stick SA on everything, but want to make sure that the spirit of an NC is respected.

CC-BY-NC requires Adapted Material to be used for non-commercial purposes only. Does that mean, say, a Remixed OTB adapted from a CC-BY-NC licensed work can only be licensed -NC as a whole? You can license your additions CC-BY but would you be required to only distribute them on their own under the CC-BY license? Say you add a chapter and produce a new book that includes it. You can distribute & license the new chapter any way you see fit, but you can only license the new book CC-BY-NC. (Otherwise someone could take the new book, add another chapter, and sell it for profit. I assume that CC-NC prohibits that but I'm not sure how this follows from the license text.)

I'm going to get Paul Stacey to respond to this question when we meet with him tomorrow on the webinar.

If we are interested not just in the individual licenses on our own work, but also in building an activist movement towards open, is it better to use the SA rather than the simple CC BY? I generally hear the leaders of the movement advocating for the most open license (the CC BY), but wouldn't SA be a better contribution to the momentum of open access? Not sure I really understand this, and would love help answering this question or setting me straight if I am misunderstanding something here. Trying to figure out how I want to license my own online course materials and such (I just use CC BY now)...

I partly agree about CC SA, but having 'BY' is useful if you need to make contact with the author and track them down. I do like to know who has made the stuff :)

In principle, it would be better to use a license that ensures people who use your work to also require them to allow others to make use of their improvements/changes. The -SA licenses require this in a sense, but the problem arises when you combine it with NC: BY-SA and BY-SA-NC are incompatible. If you license an OTB as CC-BY-SA, it would not allow someone to make a translation, say, and license the translation BY-SA-NC (let alone BY-NC or BY-ND). They can make and distribute the translation but it must be licensed BY-SA. So the question is: would it be better to have a translation of your OTB even if the translator wants to insist on non-commercial use of the translation, or would you then rather not have a translation at all? Of course, you still hold the copyright, so you can always grant permissions to your work to particular people beyond the license you put on it. Eg, you can license it BY-SA but let someone make a translation and distribute the translation as BY-NC-ND. But that requires your explicit permission and isn't allowed by the BY-SA license alone.

If I am understanding this correctly then the big difference is within the SA licensing. The moment this is applied then content under the CC BY SA cannot be used commercially - so do you need to even add the NC license designation?

Hi Carla, great question. If you are using the CC BY SA does not prohibit someone from SELLING your work. You would still need to put the NC there to ensure they are not selling the work.

If you put CC BY SA on a work this doesn't prohibit someone from taking your work, putting it in a locked system and selling it. The SA part is only valid if someones makes a change to your work, that is where it kicks in. You are saying "if you make a change to my CC BY work, you must SA back".

Thank you - now this is clear

Excellent resources on licensing open material and I appreciate the discussion as well. Folks mentioned several of the issues we've worked through regarding open textbook reviews. Thank you. Leslie

Great video on creating and combining licenses. Now it makes more sense when I am reviewing different websites and I see the type of license(s) on the bottom of the lower right hand page. Now I know what to look for and how to use them in my course!

How is CC BY 2.0 different from CC BY 3.0? I've seen the numbers on various attributions, but I'm not sure what the difference is. Is the number required as part of the attribution? If the number is missing, does it change anything about the license?

HI! Great question- we did a bit of research and found a table on the Creative Commons Wiki- this table highlights the differences in the various licenses. https://wiki.creativecommon...

Best practice would suggest that you identify the CC license with the most up to date version.

That is a great question! I hadn't really thought about it, even though Paul Stacey talked a bit about Flickr still using 2.0 licenses, so I'm glad you did.

And thank you Amanda et al. for looking into it for us. The tables look quite handy (e.g. the ones comparing attribution requirements) for making sure to honour the terms of the specific license for whatever we're using, since it looks like requirements around how to attribute (among other things) have changed across versions over time.