Project

General

Profile

Actions

Feature #16335

open

Revisiting options and functions of Creative Commons license widget

Added by Laurie Hurson about 1 month ago. Updated about 1 month ago.

Status:
Reporter Feedback
Priority name:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category name:
-
Target version:
Start date:
2022-07-06
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:

Description

Hi All,

The release of the OER tag and the Open Education institute I ran in June has highlighted some issues with the Creative Commons license widget we are running on the commons, particularly on sites.

By default, every page of every site site is tagged with a CC license. I think we should revisit that. People may want some of their content openly licensed but not all of it. For example, Raffi Khatchadourian wrote to the Zendesk asking how to list some of his pages on his main site as oer but not all of the pages. Currently this is not really possible - the CC license is only available on a page by page basis or it encompasses the whole site. I am proposing we allow CC for some pages and no clear open license on other pages (hence signifying they are not open).

I think the automatic, by default tagging of every page as CC, regardless of whether a user has chosen the CC license knowingly, is an issue.

This also raises questions about creating an option to allows folks to restrict some of their work. Maybe we don't want to provide a "closed" option but this could also occur through simply not applying a CC license by default to every page and allowing a user to knowingly assign the CC license to only "open" content.

I think all of these issues, ideas, and options warrant a discussion, which hopefully we can pick up in the fall.


Files

2022-07-07_144335.png (12.6 KB) 2022-07-07_144335.png Raymond Hoh, 2022-07-07 05:50 PM
Actions #1

Updated by Laurie Hurson about 1 month ago

  • Subject changed from Revisi options and functions of Creative Commons license widget to Revisiting options and functions of Creative Commons license widget
Actions #2

Updated by Boone Gorges about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from New to Reporter Feedback
  • Target version set to 2.1.0

Thanks for this, Laurie. I think there are technical and design considerations about how different layers of license work together (fallback vs page-specific settings, etc), and I've added Ray and Sara as watchers.

But before jumping into this, I think there should be a broader discussion about what we want to accomplish, and how these licenses are designed to work in a context with more than one level of granularity. Maybe we should bring a librarian into the discussion so that we can sketch out best practices?

Actions #3

Updated by Raymond Hoh about 1 month ago

Thanks for accumulating these issues, Laurie.

I think the automatic, by default tagging of every page as CC, regardless of whether a user has chosen the CC license knowingly, is an issue.

I can see how it would be better to not use the default site license for each post or page. Instead, we can introduce a default "Inherit" option on posts and pages, which would make it more clear that the post license is using whatever the site license is. See attached mockup.

If "Inherit" is also an issue because we do not want the site to even have a sitewide license, then a "Not set" option would be better. Maybe the "Inherit" label is used if the site has set a site license and the "Not set" label is used when the site has not set a site license under the "Settings > Writing" admin dashboard page or during site creation.

Also, it's worth noting that it currently isn't possible to have the site license set to nothing, so some work would need to be done there.

Actions #4

Updated by Laurie Hurson about 1 month ago

Thank you both for feedback on this.

Also, it's worth noting that it currently isn't possible to have the site license set to nothing, so some work would need to be done there.

Yes, and this is what prompted the ticket in the first place. I think now that we are beginning to see sites tagged as OER, we should offer more control and granularity in how the CC licenses are applied on sites. The original use case for this is Raffi's site - on which he has created an OER but does not want to license the whole site as open.

If "Inherit" is also an issue because we do not want the site to even have a sitewide license, then a "Not set" option would be better. Maybe the "Inherit" label is used if the site has set a site license and the "Not set" label is used when the site has not set a site license under the "Settings > Writing" admin dashboard page or during site creation.

I think an both an "inherit" option and "not set" option would be helpful but also somehow adding the a way to have a page with no license at all (perhaps accomplished through the not set option).

All of this is to say that yes, I agree with Boone that we likely need to have a longer discussion about how to refine the CC licensing in the Fall. I think getting librarians feedback would be helpful too. But first we may want to have a team convo to outline our goals for how the CC features will function on the commons.

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF