 Hi, I'm Becca Neal. I'm really not good at Twitter. Awesome. So what we want to ask you to do on the next slide is first introduce yourself. So if you will just go in the chat box and share your name and if you want to share your Twitter handle go for it. But also share anything else that you'd like to share about your context and maybe why you're here. And then we have this like super interactive gift that is going to go wild Becca back on or mercy I'm sorry mercy back on the previous slide if you don't mind. Yeah, whoops, almost there. The crazy gift is where we want to be. Yeah, great. So thanks everyone who's already showing up in the chat letting us know if you're having any trouble seeing the slides. I'm also putting a link to the published version of the slides that you can follow along. The published version of the slides also has some embedded links so that as we open links so you can follow along. And of course you can have access to this slide deck because we are open type of folks. And we will be encouraging you after today's webinar to think about how you might take this back to your community. But if we let's see mercy we lost the slide deck. If we take just a minute and think about what you see here in this gift. I'm excited to welcome you from all over different universities different part of the state. So shout out to everyone love senior Twitter handles will be sure to follow up with you. Is it more a Anna I love what you're sharing about interested in licenses beyond Creative Commons so that's something that will definitely tried to back and Brandon if you don't mind maybe making a note if you see any of those specific questions that we can dig into and we get a little bit later. And yes love seeing that some of you are already collaborators in regards to the open field so shout out to Helen and the work that she's already doing for open access. I wanted to offer us kind of our like warm up think get your get you thinking out of your your box right like why did you come here so excited to see your wise start to show up if you're Simon cynic fans about the Golden Circle and the why like why are you here. So we're glad to have you here. But here's a different circle to think of which is a connection to kind of the process of science. So, just curious about what you see other than the crazy blinking of the gift. What do you notice about this image. And so I'll take give you a minute just to look at it and then we'll we'll debrief for a minute so in the chat box. If you will share anything that you notice about this image. Yes, I didn't realize that the gift blinked quite so fast when I picked it. So it's a little small but I think that Mariana noticed this, the publish is there right like, and I think the franticness of publish is actually about right for what people feel that there's this emphasis in research cycle around publish so no matter what of academics you're in you might be constantly feeling this emphasis to publish. And I really love what Mariana said about publishing can happen at any point. Mariana would you want to I participants able to unmute I can't remember if I can grab her right. Mariana maybe I don't think I can unmute you maybe if you'd be willing to share a little bit more in the chat box or this is an invitation for any of you to share. Why is publishing at any point that's such a great point to bring up why is publishing at any point really important to the work of openness. A lot of you I see are already really engaged in open scholarship, whether it's officially with an organization, or whether it's kind of on your own. And so would love for you to just kind of share a little bit more about what Mariana said around like publishing and how does that have to do with being open. So, I'm a big chat box lover during the webinar so that it doesn't feel quite so much like sit and get but a little bit more like talk. Yeah I love the comment about it's post to be shared. And I think that we can move away from this perfectionism idea that I can't publish until everything is exactly perfect but I can ask for help in the process I can share widely and so I think that a big part of what we're going to challenge you to do today is Marcy offered this theme for the webinar of how to share creatively. And there was a point in the comment box about moving beyond just creative Commons licenses and looking at how we share behavior and education research is the unconference that's coming up really soon. I think there's there's a ton that that we might think about the traditional way that we've shared resources and kind of push that point. Crystal brings up that sharing the process at multiple points really increases our efficiency so awesome and Sue mentions people being able to observe the science, because we want to see how it's happening. So, as we start to move beyond the traditional I wait till everything is perfect and Marcy yet next slide for us if you don't mind. All rights reserved is kind of the traditional copyright so those of you who are copyright experts, this feels really comfortable to you, you know that the traditional copyright is all rights reserved. And one of the really great things that I love to offer to educators and to, you know, anyone is the minute that you create intellectual property you own that copyright you are the author. And so that's really exciting for some folks who don't realize like hey once I make something I'm the creator I own the rights to this, and I can control how it's presented distributed used and remixed which has to do with what we call derivative rights. So what we're really inviting you to do is we move forward away from what I'll kind of call the dark side of like oh I'm going to keep everything in the dark until it's perfect and then I'll share it, and moving towards come into the light side right I call open sharing like the light side come on over. And once you know you can't know once you know how easy it is to share. And of course I always use the story of Wikipedia and how people thought that crowdsourcing was this like awful idea and would never work and we'd end up with so many errors if we crowd sourced and openly shared and that's not necessarily what we've seen and those of you who know the history of Wikipedia know the importance of academics and especially science and moving Wikipedia forward so I wanted to just make sure that we all have this common language around what open licensing means so openly licensed is where there's a formalized specific way of allowing open access. The traditional way especially in science is that you had to pay to access and now that even move to like you have to pay to publish for other people to access so we shared a few readings down at the bottom we're not going to dig into but we shared a few readings on the history of copyright and scientific publishing and the mess that is scientific publishing so this is inspiring you to kind of like nerd out on publishing and what you know and how to undo what you previously thought and then there are some resources there for you and we we do want to bring up as we shared that Creative Commons is one of the leaders in open licensing. And so on the next slide, I'll just kind of share the main examples of the Creative Commons licenses. There are other ways to allow for open sharing. One of the struggles when people first started open sharing is that the way open sharing was done was through the terms of use. So people would write very long lengthy terms of use that might say well you can share this with 20 people but not 21 and you can share it. This way but not that way in terms of use got really, really complicated and it became a barrier to sharing openly and Creative Commons is a nonprofit that helped overcome those legal obstacles to sharing. And so that language that's there is kind of their description of who they are. But just want to get a feel in the chat box real quickly for whether or not you've seen these licenses before so if you can just give us a yes if you've seen the Creative Commons licenses before. And a no if you haven't, then that'll let me know if I should spend a few minutes or move on through. Yes, there goes that there goes that chat box. And those of you who have not seen the Creative Commons licenses yet. The link is there and again here's the link to the published side so that you can have those embedded links. If you open that link, you can dig down a little rabbit hole of what Creative Commons and the licenses are. Those of you who have seen it before if you'll now go to the chat box and share again if there's a particular license that you feel super drawn to. And I might even have a license that you feel super not drawn to so feel free to share that David CC by or bus. Yes, I love that enthusiasm. For those of you who are new to Creative Commons CC by means that you give attribution Creative Commons by you give attribution, you can use it in any way shape or form. You have to give credit to those who made it. And then I love Jonathan's point about CC by SA share alike to keep things open so that folks can't use your work and then turn around and put a more restrictive license on it so that other people can't use it. I have a question about non commercial. That one is the trickiest one that there is because non commercial we say means that you can't make any money off of it, but Brandon, who's our more legal level expert of the licenses would probably say like Well, there's this that and the other things so Brandon the basic X or I'm sorry Bart the basic explanation of non commercial does mean that you cannot use it for commercial reasons you could not take something that's open and put it in a textbook that you go publish and make money off of, but it gets a little bit there. And Jean or Jean. Yes, share like can be a little problematic when mixing resources, because if I take this one and it has a particular license and I want to remix it with this other one that has a different license what license do I put on it, and we're going to get into that particular in the webinar. So I'm going to take us through and I don't think well. Yeah, I don't think I'm going to play the game that's on the next slide, mercy if you want to advance to the next slide. I'll just kind of share with you all that it's a really cool game that if you, if you have people that you're sharing common licenses with and you want to teach them the game that's on here is a Creative Commons license game, and you can share and it's a drag and drop and it helps you practice your licenses but I think you all are already expert level. So the next slide is just where we want to welcome you to join today. So those of you who might be multitaskers. Here's your challenge. We want you to go ahead and go to OER Commons.org, because this is the place where you can register and make an account to start sharing. So you don't already have a platform to share resources. I'll put this link in the chat box. And this is a link to one platform where you can share openly. And once you make a account on OER Commons you can join the open science open scholarship knowledge based hub and join the groups and contribute the resources. So if you've got something that you're ready to share. I know some of you have said you're finding opens openly licensed things you're sharing openly licensed things. One of our kind of higher level engagement things for today that we hope you might do is share a resource and so the Center for open science is hosting this open scholarship knowledge base hub. This hub is like a place to organize a bunch of things right like a transportation hub might have buses and planes coming in and out of it. So this hub has a place to share resources to join a group and have discussion. So we invite you to go ahead and create your account so that you can go to the hub and join the group and we'll remind you about doing this a little bit later. I know that before you're ready to share you might have some questions about how you're going to share and what you want to share. Before we start to dig into your questions I did also just want to offer this why and then ask for your why. So this diagram is a why about why open science. There may be many reasons that some of you already brought up in the chat box, but I'd love to just give you a moment to really think about your why around open science, because you're here for a reason, maybe because you wanted to learn something or join a group. But I think that in order to keep the work moving forward, we have to really be driven by that why so would love to just ask you in the chat box. What's which maybe it's one of these that's your why maybe you have a different why for open science but would just love for you to share in the chat box. What's your why around open science, because I think that that why can drive questions that you have an engagement that you do. And the hub is all about bringing people together so you might find somebody on here the track, I have to connect with April, or I love crystals idea she had a really great point about XYZ and I really want to connect with her so I'm just going to give you a minute and be comfortable with to think about your why and share it in the chat box. Wow crystal has a really good point all of these I think I know I know as I read these it adds to my why. And so I think this is a really, really great community that came to the table to the webinar today and I know Marcy is going to be in touch with you all after today so that we can help drive each other's why forward. Yes, ooh Helen the respect about the research love it. So, as we go to the next slide I'd love for you to keep sharing those wise in the chat box, and yes, Jonathan I love the shouting out of each other's answers and this is how we build the community this is how we move from a restricted rights reserved copyright facing, especially science and academic publishing problem to the place where we can share openly. So, as you're shouting out each other, maybe you read something and you say like, Oh, now I have a question and this made me wonder about this and this made me wonder about that. Start populating those questions in the chat box so that we can get to them. What we're going to do now is move into a specific Q&A we took some frequently asked questions and Becca and Brandon are going to give you the quick answer. And after today's webinar Marcy, we're going to work to compile a deeper level of questions that include your questions, and you'll be getting a copy of the recording as well as a FAQ sheet itself. Let's take it away. And our first question, some questions that you might be considering as you move to be open. Will my work receive as much engagement if I don't publish in a large publication. All right, I believe this one's me I'll kick us off here. So again hi everyone I'm Becca. So whereas Brandon is of course the literal legal expert here. I am a librarian that focuses a lot on access and accessibility and so this is, this is a question that I get a lot. And it's a question that is, it's an idea that's kind of perpetuated by publishers and by non open publishing communities right. You have these mainstream traditional journals that everybody wants to publish and they have their high citation indexes and all of that business. The answer to this is, it will receive the same amount of engagement possibly more possibly a little bit less but there are lots of factors involved here so, for example, one thing you want to keep in mind whenever you're publishing open right you have taken away that financial barrier for access. And so you need to be thinking really about this this this notion of discoverability, and from the library side of things from the back is that has to do with indexes. So, for example, if you're publishing in an open journal, is it part of the directory of open access journals. This is a huge index that is piped into a lot of discoverability tools like the aggregator databases to your big epskos, and possibly most importantly Google scholar, right so is it is it there. Likewise, can you put either the full published or a version of your work in perhaps an institutional repository. So if your university has an IR. The vast majority of those are also piped out to Google scholars so they are findable for folks who are not, or who can't get past certain financial barriers that traditional publishers tend to impose. Thanks Becca so much information there. I was like practically grabbing some keywords that she says so we'll be sure to kind of send that out deeper as well so that when you're looking to promote your work that you have that knowledge and let's see our next question. How do institutional or campus contracts or intellectual property policies affect what I can share and how I can share it. So, I think, enter the lawyer right and I have to have to give the disclaimer that you know I should probably like tattoo this on my chest so I can just like, you know, bear it and show you but like, I'm a lawyer but I'm not your lawyer and if this was legal I would be surprised it would be followed by a bill right but but I'm very happy to talk about these issues and give you some information right so the answer here is that institutional contracts or policies can definitely change your rights in a number of ways for good or right and so, for example, many campuses have open access policies, and under the open access policies that these campuses have implemented, you know, typically through like a faculty governance process like a faculty senate. So that that policy actually creates a license for the university to host open versions of your research and that license pre exists and trumps to use a word I don't love to say the publishing license that you may sign later with your publisher and so that is a way of protecting them by sort of creating a barrier around them in a way that prevents the publisher from grabbing them automatically right because your your institution has already taken a license and the publisher can't undo that. There are other interesting policies so for example, if you're engaged in sponsored research, you may have an agreement with the sponsor of your research whether that's a funder like the National Institutes of Health, or an industry partner and a kind of public private partnership. And those kinds of agreements also may include IP, you know, terminology that say well everything that you do as part of this grant either has to be kept open has to be published in a particular repository, or to the contrary has to be kept secret given only to the industry partner and not published for five years in order to protect their patents so all of that stuff should be on your list of things to read and understand before you figure out whether you can also use a Creative Commons license or any open license, because all of those other agreements came first, and you have to make sense of those and figure out what they mean for you before you can decide whether you have any rights left to license to the world with an open license. And then and just to add this is a great place for advocacy and discussion that you can have with your department and with your broader university because there may be folks who don't understand the opportunity for open. So our next question. Can I make my work open and publish it in traditional outlets like subscription journals or scholarly books. So if you have the right to license your work however you want. Thank you both. It's a great answer and a great question I'll give a not great answer and it's it depends. And so that's going to be the case with so many of these scenarios because again so many mitigating factors but it primarily depends on as Brandon was talking about the Polish, the policies that the publishers that you're working with are enforcing and I come across in scholarly books in the wild. Sometimes you see little notations at the beginning or end of a chapter. This work was previously published in external right so there are some publishers that do allow for for publishing in multiple venues and kind of sharing those around. But it all comes down to what what the publisher says and here there is a little bit of leeway to again if we talk about versioning of the resource. So let's say you publish in a traditional subscription journal. Oftentimes you're going to be able to publish either a preprint or the author's manuscript that has been peer reviewed but not quite copy edited. That can be put into an institutional repository to again boost your discoverability in in things like Google scholar and databases and things like that. So moral of the story it depends but do you take a look at the policies that you're working with. Yeah, I just I want to put in a good word for this strategy of, I guess, you know what has in the past been called like green open access, you know where you can kind of have it both ways in some sense you publish in a traditional place but you also have an open version and, you know, I, there's a great article I'm going to dig out and I'll put a link in the chat. So my solution to one of the kind of dark sides of open access which is that some of the pay to publish open access outlets are extremely expensive and they're recreating the same kind of inequity that we wanted open access to solve by making it hard for authors to afford to participate in the same way that subscriptions make it hard for readers to afford to participate. So this notion of kind of having it both ways publishing an open version can be a way for some authors to affordably take advantage of open licenses and open access. Thanks Brandon will watch the chat box for that link and before we go to the next question just want to ask you all all the participants a question, have you published anything openly yet. Do you want to share anything about your journey of publishing openly and how you came to the open world or whatever you want to share in the chat we want to hear it and we want to know it. So feel free to make that chat box fly as Marcy takes us to the next question. What if I adapt existing works. So this was something that we saw earlier in the chat box where we were asking you about the licenses and let's see. If you're not shared about if I'm adapting certain licenses can be challenging. So how does that work with licensing and attribution if you're adapting something that's existing. So I can jump in on that one too. When you're adapting from an existing work. You know the first thing to be sure to understand is whether the license on that work is going to let you do it. Right. And then, of course, the, the interesting thing about Creative Commons licenses is that all of them except for the zero one, my personal fave. All of them except for the zero include an attribution requirement. So if you are adapting from CC licensed work, you still need to give proper attribution to the work as part of what you're doing in order to comply with the license and so you're permitted to adapt, you're expected to also attribute. And just make sure you know to attribute in the way that the author indicates they would like to be attributed. And try to give a sense of what your adaptation did is kind of my good practice, you know, I think authors are often a little scared that when their work is adapted. It's really clear what was original and what was changed and so when you're doing an adaptation I think it's really helpful to, to attribute to the original link to the original and give a sense of what your adaptation is. Thanks. Okay, so our next question and love seeing some of you share your resources if there's one in particular you want to go ahead and drop in the chat box go for it. Our next question is about fair use which is super sticky. How can I incorporate. Can I ever incorporate into my fair use copyright works or portions of works that don't have open licenses in my OER work and how can I do this and back up before you dig into this if you'll just give everyone the best definition you can a fair use since it is so sticky. Absolutely so I'm going to pull up a link and pop it in the chat. So, very uses essentially it's it's a limitation to copyright. And all of that is explained in the guide that I just kind of shipped along and I'm sure Brandon also agree with great great definition here, but it's it's a way for for you to be able to to use pieces of work. And the problem is not problem the adventure in fair use is that that there are essentially there are four factors involved right so whenever you are contemplating using a copyrighted work you have to think about the purpose and the character of your use of that work you have to think about the nature of the work that you are using. You have to think about the amount of the work that you're using right you can't just take somebody else's full book and republish it as your own that's very not fair use. And of course the market effective your use and this is where things get really tricky and education because there is a lot of times this this, this common notion that there's like a blanket fair use for education right so you can use whatever you want in your courses and it's totally fine that's not correct. So, whenever you're using copyrighted works you need to be thinking through these these different factors right and again the answer to this is always it depends right it's totally dependent on how you're using a work and what you're using. So, I'm looking at reading this question here because I might have gone on a tangent yeah so that the answer to this is really similar to the answer to the question Brandon just just answered in that. You know, it's kind of like if you're just deciding something in a paper right you go by your fair use factors and then just proper legal attribution practices. And so the only thing that's that's exactly right and the only thing I'll add. And first of all, I'm going to go find there's another good thing I'll drop in the chat there's a very recently ish published best practices and fair use for we are. So that document is super helpful, but the very short version is exactly what Becca just said you know fair use is there for you it applies in the context of your use in the same way it would in any other context. And the one wrinkle to think about or the thing that I always stress is when you incorporate other people's works into your own work under fair use. It's similar to if you incorporated their work into your own work under a license, you need to market and sort of attribute it so that someone for example who is who picks up your sort of open access textbook. So, and your textbook says CC by on the front. They don't flip to the third party, you know, material that you relied on fair use to put in there, and, and believe that that material is subject to your license, right. So they need to understand that this is not yours, you've incorporated it based on fair use. And if they want to use it, they have to think through their own kind of fair use calculus they can't rely on your license because it's not your thing. So that's the only wrinkle I always want to, I always caution people, you know, as part of their front matter of their work say you know this work is licensed XYZ, but third party material third party material is incorporated under fair use or other licenses as noted right or whatever just to make sure that your reader understands which parts of your work is under the license and which parts are not. Great. So much to think about. So which license license should you use. And so if you want to share in the chat box which license you've published under some of you have already picked the one that you publish under. Many we are advocates prefer CC by which is just that basic attribution license, but why shouldn't you use a more restrictive license like CC by non commercial non derivative. So, let's see Brandon is this a you and do you want to give us a quick explanation of why why someone would want to use that very restrictive license and then why they shouldn't. Yes, this is such an interesting issue. The, you know, the data we have from surveys of authors and academic authors shows that those authors often like to assign, you know if you just sort of ask them if you had to pick a license for your work what might you use without any sort of prompting or education beforehand the inclination gut instinct is to include these limitations, you know they don't like the idea that their work could be used commercially, or translated for example without their consent. And so the limitations are very popular, and they're popular because people are concerned about what other people might do with their work in certain circumstances. However, as I sort of, you know as we see in the kind of short answer there, every one of these limitations is going to shrink your audience and limit what they can do with your work. Right, and you have to think about whether you're okay with that shrinkage, and whether that's really going to help you meet your goals with the work. One of the biggest problems with license limitations, we sort of alluded to this earlier is as easy as easy as Creative Commons licenses in particular are to understand they're still not perfectly transparent. So, in particular non commercial is a term that that's still no one understands, not even lawyers, you know, and so I mean I was literally panicking, you know, googling and dragging up all of the literature about what this non commercial term is, you know, this webinar to try to refresh my memory because it looks intuitive, but after about 30 seconds of thinking about it it just sort of falls apart. And so when you attach that non commercial term to your license, you're going to lose a lot of people who are afraid that if they use this material in any way that touches money, they could get in trouble, and I don't think that's what the license is, but it's not an unreasonable thing for people to worry about. The other thing I often think about is, are you willing to sue people if they do something that's against the license, like do you have the time and money and resources to go and sue someone for copyright infringement, if they create an unauthorized translation of your work. And if the answer to that is no, I'm also inclined that's one of the reasons I prefer CC zero because I know that the best I can do in my life is to force the expectations I have for how my work is used is to name and shame people, right, and to make my own work as free as possible. And that way, anybody who wants my work can find it and they can have it. They can be able to sell it or rip people off with it. And again, you know, if someone does those things, I'm really not in a position to sue them and chase them down anyway so I'm not a huge fan of all the limitations but, but they're popular, and they're there for a reason so you know I don't mean to talk them down too much but that's my that's my take anyway, for what it's worth. Thank you Brandon and so much to think about and the chatbox is full of really great questions and shares. Let's see our next question because we want to make sure we get some time for you all to ask your questions we've had a few submitted. So, if I change your mind can I revoke my license quick answer. Yeah, so, and this I think this this also depends, it depends on it will not really you can't report your license but but why why are you trying to revoke your license right so if you know your work out there that somebody has kind of fudged with and things are a little wonky there is a mechanism for. I think that that attribution portion there's a there's a mechanism for that. But that only is like a mandatory sort of thing in in certain situations and I can provide a link to that too but the best you can really do if you just want to kind of un-CC license something which you can't do is really just stop distributing it right like if you have it hosted somewhere, take it down. But the people who have those copies I mean are still free to do as they will per the terms of the actual license. Great. And I think the more that we're all as people are saying in the chat box in the open world, the more that we start to understand how to appropriately share openly. So our last question for our panelists and from our side and then it will move to you all, are there limits other than attribution in a basic CC by license so if that's the license you choose a CC by which are giving attribution. What are the other limits. So there are a few actually, and they're not very well known but they are very important. And really the most important one I think because it really addresses something that gives so many especially scholarly authors heartburn is that one of the terms even in the CC by license is that users are not permitted to either imply or explicitly state that by taking advantage of the license, the author, they now have an endorsement from the author for their use. Right. And so like the classic fear is like I'm going to publish my scientific article, and some nut job is going to use it misinterpret it and say, you know, as Brandon Butler wrote in his seminal 2021 article. The sky is actually green and, you know, the moon is made of cheese, and they can, they can quote me they can put my entire paper on their website under CC by, and they could even you know I arguably I suppose you can they could misrepresent me but they couldn't say Brandon Butler supports this website right Brandon Butler is now a an endorser of my bananas theory, because here's his whole paper and I've put it on my website right. I didn't imply that either and so that gives folks a good authors can say well you know I'm sorry he's wrong about my work. And it gives it gives authors a way to prevent people from dragging them into, you know, sort of context where they don't want to be. Also when you alter a work even under CC by your expected to make a note that you've altered the work right so CC by permits you to make like a translation for example. And you have to note you know this is a translation from this CC by work, and I did the translation, you know so that way people can understand that, you know the author is not responsible for any mistakes in the translation. For example, so those two things I think are really important for people understand because again, those are kind of the two greatest fears that a lot of authors have that I'm going to be used as an endorser, or that somebody is going to change and people will think I was the one that changed it. And so, no, under the CC by license neither of those things is allowed and if someone does it you can sue them for copyright infringement. That's what you want to do. Thank you so if you'll share any other questions that you all have in the chat box Brandon and Becca are going to give you their best advice that is non legal and non binding but great answers to questions and we're excited to answer some of the questions we've seen in the chat. So one question or comment that I've seen as I'm populating through the chat is addressing the issue of serious budget constraints at libraries, and how we are might help mitigate that challenge of inadequate library resources. Have any thoughts about that Becca. Yeah, I can do that. No, so, and it's really cool. Gosh, yes, there are so many possibilities here and I'm not sure. You've probably all heard about some of the bigger schools dropping their, you know, big package deals and things like that and one bargaining tool that a lot of larger libraries have to is to make deals with publishers right to allow access to the work that they're going to do with faculty publish with those publishers to be released openly so they're there's some negotiation stuff that libraries can do there's also a lot of consortium movement. So, for example, this is kind of a relatively recent one MIT has a new open ebook licensing model to where essentially libraries pay a little subscription just a little bit. It's based on their library size and that money gets libraries access to backlogs of content but also pays for future open publication of ebooks going forward from that press so there are a lot of ways that that libraries are working toward that sort of open model, because for all of us it's just disgusting that information is behind all of these financial barriers. I wanted to make sure that was was addressed and discussed. Another question we're receiving is what about non creative Commons open licenses. Yeah, and I can take that one on. You know, the, the world of licenses and open licenses is actually quite enormous. And there are, there are, you know, many many non creative Commons licenses. You know the nice thing about creative Commons for sort of textual traditional, you know, scholarly type works is that they are easy to understand on the face of them anyway. They're, you know, commonly used easy to abbreviate, they're supported by all of the infrastructure of creative Commons there's a computer readable version and a lawyer readable version of every license right. So and they're developing and sort of revising them over time in ways that make them strong, you know more robust and useful. So that's all good about creative Commons. True there are the world of software in particular has a huge variety of open licenses. And I will confess I am not an expert on open software licenses that is there are more open software licenses than I could probably read, you know, and in a week. And so I don't have a favorite. But I will say I do think it is useful to to look at licenses that are for your kind of content that is creative Commons licenses are for like traditional textual content and are not perfect for software or data for example so data is another great example. So data creates interesting challenges with respect to attribution for example and as does code. When you're mixing together potentially hundreds or thousands of works to create a new work. How do you attribute all those elements right that's that creates a problem called attribution stacking. So in the data world, it's very common to favor open licenses that don't require attribution so CC zero, or there are open database licenses that are specific to data. And that solves that problem that creative Commons licenses could sort of inadvertently create so sorry I can't tell you which software license to use but I can tell you there are lots. And, and it is useful to not always use CC licenses when you're talking about specialized content. So, there's another question about code. And if there are any suggestions regarding putting a license on analysis or experimental code. Is that the one that's happening in the chat right now Marcy is trying to go through. Yeah, probably some of yeah. I think this is related to also what Brandon said to you so there are a couple of things that I would think of when trying to license my own code or software anything like that so one. What is most recognized within the community. So I mean you can always drop CC on something but if there is something that the community is just used to or if, or if something that is going to kind of ingratiate you to the community so I know a lot of software licensing does the whole copy left thing right so it's essentially similar to the whole CC by share alike. So I'm sharing but you got to share to you can't lock this down so those sorts of licenses. So I don't think there's like a one best thing but it's just kind of what you're familiar with what your community uses and what you want to do with what you're licensing. We've got just a couple of minutes. Marcy. Oh no I was going to say another question that came in was about allowing authors to change a license on public content. And is that only if the license, if they move to a more open license, but not a more restrictive one. So the yeah very short answer to that one sure you can always get broader, but you know because you're not revoking the old license you're kind of augmenting it you're saying you can do everything I said before, and also more. And so you can always get bigger but once you've, once you've put an open license out there and you, and especially once someone has relied on it. I can't say never mind you can't do that anymore too late that you offer an acceptance that's a contract. It's over you law you can't take it back. So that's one and then I want it real quick in the last couple minutes. I've seen the same question come up a couple of times about if an author uses like a non commercial license, couldn't the author still themselves make commercial uses and yes that's the classic open source software business model in a way is you can put out, you know, a version that's free for other people to make non commercial uses. But if somebody wants to make a commercial use they have to come to you, and you can make your own commercial uses. So yes absolutely just because you've put limitations on what others can do doesn't mean you yourself as the actual copyright holder are subject to any of those limits. Excellent. Well thanks everyone so much. I feel like we could go for another hour with all of these questions coming in it's some, you know, deceptively really rich and really interesting so we really appreciate Joanna and Becca and Brandon and all of your expertise and so thank you so much for sharing. And again, we wanted to encourage you the discussion does not stop here, and the process does not stop here so we hope you will consider making some of your scholarship available. We're sharing something on the open scholarship knowledge base and take this information back to some of your colleagues. And we know that there are a lot of people with questions so we hope that that this can can help other people at your institutions. And of course, be on the lookout for follow up recordings and other frequently asked questions, and we'll be in touch. Thanks for your time.