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 celebrate! 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 class. 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 education. 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. Dedalus _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l