 Paul. Thank you. Let her speak first. So thanks everyone for coming. Thanks Paul for introducing and moderating. I'll go straight to screen share and we'll go from there if you don't mind. So let me just let me just do that. Of the mic setup. It's like we're on a talk show. Yeah call in show. Very good. So the, as you know, my talk is on the case for non derivative OER or how we can work with non derivative CC licensed products in OER. So let's get straight to things. I feel that non derivative licensed items are a bit stigmatized in the open educational field. As we see from this slide from David Wiley, they get the big red X when it comes to revision and remixing because of the inability to adapt or to modify and to use a quotation that I've taken from a blog post at creative commons. The no derivatives license is restrictive in the sense of adapting. You can't even translate your update things like that. So it is, it is restrictive. It does have restrictions that there's no doubt about that. But there is a kind of the way it's stigmatized a little bit. I find is a bit. I don't want to say it's annoying, but it I think it goes a little too far. So for example, this is just a slide from a presentation cable green. And here we see OER the licensed products through like the permissions granted through creative commons that are good, get the green ones that red, you know, not OER. Very stress. There's a real divide there. And it's my concern is that that kind of stigmatizes OER, certain products that could be part of OER in a broader sense and might serve to dissuade people to be involved in open education, which I think would be a shame. As an analogy to this, I want to look at the this blog post from Brigitte Vesina of creative commons. And she was talking that this is from this year from April 2020. And she was talking about open access. So the situation with open access research and how it cannot be considered OER and or cannot be considered. Sorry, non derivative work shouldn't be used as open access. Pardon me for getting a little confused there. And the reason is because they restrict the reuse of content. And as she curtailed the opportunity of researchers to contribute to the advancement of knowledge. By forbidding adaptations, it flies in the face of the ethos of academic research. It harms researchers. I'm not sure it actually does harm researchers. It's true that it restricts what they can do with some of the material if it does have a Creative Commons ND license. However, so much research has even greater restrictions and we make use of it. We have access through our libraries as a university for affiliated with universities and colleges. We have access through libraries and things. It's restricted. It's not as open for sure. She refers in her blog post to the open access recommendations of the Budapest open access initiative. And looking at those, it's true that they see, you know, and they're talking here about open access and research. So they're talking about gratis access and labor access and all of those terms that they use on that side of the fence. But the point that they make in their recommendations is we should achieve what we can when we can. So while CC buy is considered really something to be aspired to, the recommendations don't say it can only be that. It's more like let's take the glass half full. Let's get what we can when we can and progressively move forward in that regard. And when we look more importantly, when we look at the Budapest open access initiative, the actual declaration from 2002, this point is very important. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution and the only role for copyright in this domain should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited. Two important points here. The right to be properly acknowledged and cited and that's in all CC licenses. That's the attribution, the buy part. But to give authors control over the integrity of their work, if they've created something that they want to keep whole in some fashion is the authors, that belongs to the author. That needs to belong to the author, that control over integrity, which seems to run a, it seems to run counter to the notion of using CC buy in the open access side of things. Because with CC buy, you can adapt, modify, modify, reuse, revise all of those things. You can do all of those things. So I think there's a bit of an issue there. And that analogy has served others as well. So we have Esmishra who wrote in distance education a couple of years ago talking, he was referring to a number of issues with open education that he thought needed to be addressed. And he did refer to the open access initiative. As I pointed out here, the middle quotation shows that the context is the research rights and very few authors of research would like their work to be changed. That's probably quite true. And so we need to be able to preserve content integrity. That's why the ND can help with that. But he makes two other points that in his article, which isn't really focused on this topic per se, but it comes up. And so he mentions a couple of things. And the one at the top quotation is, if we want to, we are to succeed, we have to think about, we need to develop policies that allow copyright holders to decide how they want to share. And we have that with Creative Commons. But of course, Creative Commons, we have six licenses to choose from. It may not have all the personal choice that we would wish. Also, he makes the third point, well, you know, okay, so we don't get all five Rs. We don't get the remixing and the revising, but we get the other three Rs and ain't that good enough. That's basically what he's saying. He doesn't say, ain't behind it. You know, three out of five Rs ain't bad. And that's something to think about with regard to our definition of OER and using the five Rs. Do we need all five? I put the question out there. I'm not, I don't, you know, but I, but I wonder about that. Do we need it in all cases? Is that something that we need to be thinking about? So I think this is especially an issue with the way teaching is changing. Maybe it's not changing. Maybe it's just we're becoming more explicit about the different ways of teaching or different aspects of teaching. So we generally think of teaching about the traditional approach would be teaching as the transmission of knowledge to students, receive knowledge, we take it, we maybe change it a little bit or make it, you know, help it be more understandable to the students we have in our classroom and we pass it along. It's kind of like we as the instructors just pass it along. But that's changing. And especially in with communities like open educational communities where people are thinking more about different ways of being more progressive about how they approach teaching, there's a couple of things that are changing. So in some cases we think about teaching about creating knowledge and sharing it with students. Now this is, this has often been the way at universities is the role of the instructor of the faculty members to do research, to work on certain topics, and then to pass that knowledge along to his or her students. That's been going on for centuries. And we also are coming more and more into a situation where teaching is both co-creating knowledge with students. And there we have examples of, you know, the creation of literary anthologies, these open educational resources that are literary anthologies like Janet Ward's for Spanish and Robin DeRosa's for American literature early American. And that's a, those are examples and there are more and more of them almost every day it seems, where we're co-creating with students. And there we have to ask ourselves, well for co-creating with students for bringing their voices into the knowledge that we're distributing, is there a need to be preserving those voices in there, in keeping those voices integral, keeping the integrity of those voices, the wholeness of them. And I think these questions are going to be raised more and more with regard to the relationship between how we license our work and open educational resources. So why would, what would be the reasons for creating non-derivative who we are? Obviously to share, we all want to, we're interested in open education, we want to share what we're doing with others. And sometimes we want to share original ideas and we want to keep the originality of that idea whole. That's an important aspect sometimes of what we're sharing. That could be a reason for a non-derivative license. Content integrity is similar to that, although it might be the integrity of the whole product that we've created. Maybe there's something about it that we feel needs to be kept as is. That might be a reason. Sometimes we're dealing with very complicated material and the explanations need to be maintained so that there can't be, or to avoid misrepresentation, innocent misrepresentation, not willful. But just simply, you know, think about it when you probably played that whispering game where somebody starts whispers a sentence to their neighbor and it goes, passes down a chain, by the end it's a completely different sentence than the beginning. Education could be like that. We can, as we pass things along from one person to the next, it can be misunderstood and perhaps we want to prevent that. Preserving student voices, as I previously mentioned, the notion of keeping the student voice, if they've contributed something to a, to an item that we're working on with them, maybe the value of that item is because there's an original student voice there. Do we want that to be changed? We may not want that to be changed. And then sensitive material. If we're dealing with sensitive material, politically charged or material that causes, can cause upset or can cause, you know, real debate and concern within our educational communities, it may be important that the material be preserved in a, in a, in a whole form, in an, like in its original form, in order to make sure that we have exactly, that we know exactly what was meant by something and we don't misinterpret it somehow, especially when it's very sensitive. So I have a couple of suggestions about how we might proceed. And in this, in this approach, you know, basically I give four kind of ways we might do this. We might just wave the white flag of surrender and say, well, we'll just leave it well enough alone. Most of the things that I licensed, I licensed with CC by this presentation, for example. And I do that. And in the hope that people will use it well and use it properly or properly being that they'll represent my ideas as best they can when they, if they reuse or adapt the material anyway. We might talk about expanding CC licenses, but there I'd, there I wouldn't be, I don't think that would be the most fruitful approach. The CC, the creative commons regime is really good. And it's really well thought out. And that's taken years of legal and other kinds of expertise to arrive at. And I don't think there's much, what's the hope of making many changes there. I'm not sure there are, but it's a possibility, perhaps, but I'm not sure it's the most fruitful word to take. Endorsing more flexible OER solutions might be the way to approach that. And that might be, and I put a little quotation there from my paraphrase from my abstract, is devotion to the letter of the five hours law, harming the spirit of openness, which that law tries to preserve. Are we preventing people from sharing material that for reasons that they have, they want to preserve in some whole fashion, some integral content integrity fashion. Are we are is our adherence to the five hours, preventing that material from being shared and being fruitful and useful to others. That's an excellent question. And I think that's something to think about. And that would mean that rethinking the mantra of the five hours really is what we'll come down to. And then the last approach is to use work around MacGyver solutions to the problem. So, for example, just to show you a couple of quick ways this could be done. So this is this is a screenshot from the Creative Commons website. And it just gives good wording, except for otherwise noted content on this site. And then so you then would in any material you're putting out there, say, like a textbook through press books or something like that, you would provide clear indications of the material, which is, you know, it's CC by, or you might say it's CC. Yeah, CC by, but there are certain things that, you know, there are more, there are more restrictions or fewer permissions attached to them. Here's here they are. So people know that clearly. This is done, for example, in the reverse using the CC by and D license that the conversation, which is you might know this in your own country. In Canada, the conversation.ca is a kind of a way for academics and university people to publish op eds openly. And then these get published free of charge and other newspapers. Newspapers can pick these up anyone can pick these up and use them. You can use them in your courses too, of course, there, but they, but they have attached an attribution no derivative is licensed. And the reason they've done that is that they want, they want to preserve the integrity of that, of that opinion of that work that the, that the person is presenting in that, excuse me, in that op ed piece. But they provide some really clear guidelines about how to do that. And I think that as a workaround, if we use CC by and then provide clear guidelines, that might be the approach. Anyways, that's what I wanted to say. I want to thank you for attending my lecture presentation. And you see my website there, you can find all of this, which you've just seen the padlet, all of that is is there on that, on that website. And I'll put this, I'll put that web address in the chat right as well, right away as well. So I'm going to stop sharing. I don't know if we have time for questions, but I'm happy to take any of the people who would like them. Thanks a lot, James. And I encourage you as well to kind of put that up inside the OEG connect space where there's an area for your topic. Excellent. And yes, there's some good discussion that took place in chat. I encourage you to check that out. There's a variety of issues that were raised. And I think that it's an interesting topic of discussion. And that is, to what extent should the non-derivative license be considered an integral part of the OER community? I especially think it's relevant, James, from my point of view, when it comes to learning that pertains to life and mission critical kinds of things. I used to do air traffic control and you don't want to have a non-derivative license on that. No, I guess you don't. Thank you so much. Just from a timing point of view, we now need to move on to the next session.