Small Cities Imprint, Volume 3 (2011), No. 1, pp. 20 - 30

Using Free and Open Online Resources: Licensing and
Collections
NORM FRIESEN, PHD
ompson Rivers University

e purpose of this document is to proide an overview of the “open” or “ee” resources and
materials available om online collections and proiders that may be of significant strategic
value to schools, universities and to other organizations with educational mandates, such as
museums and archives. e initial sections of this paper describe some of the most basic
characteristics of “open source,” or more accurately, “creative commons” licensing for cultural
and educational resources. ese sections also outline criteria for the inclusion of items in the
annotated listing that is proided in the remainder of the document. is listing proides
details for a number of recommended collections of resources with alternative licences,
indicating the terms goerning their use in each case.

INTRODUCTION: LICENSING WORKS ON THE WEB
It goes without saying that the Internet and the Web have opened up a wide range of resource
sharing and outreach possibilities for small-scale organizations working in educational and
cultural sectors. However, technology on its own has not been enough. e free use,
dissemination and exchange of information and contents that the Internet enables has required an
appropriate legal framework to establish its legitimacy. Standard copyright law dictates that any
creative or intellectual output, once it has a tangible or material form, is the property of its creator,
and that it cannot be copied and distributed without his or her permission. e Internet,
however, is essentially a technology for copying and distribution, and it is designed in such a way
that reproduction of works, once made available, is difficult if not impossible to control. ose
who want to freely create, distribute and develop using others’ material—and those who want to
make original material freely available themselves—need a way of guaranteeing these freedoms.
“Open source” licensing has provided a way of guaranteeing these freedoms for the volunteer
soware development community, and “creative commons” licences provide similar guarantees
for those working with other kinds of intellectual and creative works. “Creative Commons” refers
to a non-profit organization that has released licences (in the USA, Canada and other
jurisdictions) that allow copyright holders to specify in detail the terms under which material can
© Copyright 2011. e author, Norm Friesen, assigns to the Small Cities Imprint the right of first publication and
educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive license to use this document for personal use and in courses of
instruction proided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. Any other usage is prohibited
without the express permission of the author.

21

Small Cities Imprint

be used. Each licence specifies particular conditions related to the attribution, derivation,
distribution and commercial use of the resource. Rights or terms related to use, distribution and
revision that would automatically apply to a copyrighted resource under conventional law can be
waived selectively for certain types of use. Licences that apply to different jurisdictions vary in
their precise wording and legal implications.
Organizations engaged in education, cultural
awareness and related activities have much to gain through access to materials licensed for use
under these terms. And many organizations, large and small, already have been successful
developing and providing content bearing only these alternative licences. One prominent
examples is Flickr (www.flickr.com), which provides access to millions of alternatively-licensed
digital photographs, which include those of the US National Archives). A second is Wikipedia
(en.wikipedia.org), which provides access to millions of pages of texts and images that are
similarly licensed. But many challenges remain in understanding the applicability of different
creative commons licences in different circumstances.
Creative Commons and other alternatives to conventional copyright have been the
subject of some confusion. In many cases, resources bearing a standard Creative Commons licence
are simply perceived to be “freely available,” whereas nothing could be further from the truth. For
commercial users in particular, some creative commons licences (specifically those with “noncommercial” and/or “share alike” clauses) can be more restrictive than conventional copyright
licensing. In a recent report, the Hewlett Foundation focuses specifically on “open” educational
resources, and comes to the following conclusion:
e principal finding of this study is that the terms “open” or “free” educational resources
do not communicate much to educators, students, and other potential users with respect
to actual uses that may be made. As a legal matter, use of these “open” resources is
governed by a great diversity of licence terms… Even standard terms may require a degree
of interpretation because users are not familiar with copyright law or because there may
be some ambiguity in the scope of uses permitted. (Hewlett Foundation, 2008:11-12)
As will be shown in the next section, one of the most “standard” or popular Creative Commons
licences —that is, the “Attribution-Share alike” licence—is open to a number of interpretations,
with each interpretation having rather different practical consequences.

LICENCE TYPES AND THEIR RESTRICTIONS
Creative Commons licences are labeled according to the types of uses they permit and disallow,
with most licences combining two or more specific conditions of use. e four conditions or
restrictions combined in Creative Commons licences are as follows:
1. All licences stipulate that the use of the resource be attributed, that the author be given credit
according to the manner requested.
2. One requirement specifies that only non-derivative or “verbatim copies” of the resource be
used. In other words, the resource not be revised or combined with other resources in any way.
3. Some licences stipulate that the resource be used only for non-commercial purposes, a
condition that has been interpreted variously.

Friesen

4. Other licences require that the resource be used only under the condition that any copies or
derivative versions be made available under the same terms as the original resource (i.e. as
“share-alike” creative commons resources).
ese restrictions are combined to produce six different types of licences, each with its own
requirements and shorthand label:
1. Attribution (“BY”).
2. Attribution and use on a share-alike basis (“BY-SA”)
3. Attribution and use (or distribution) only in original form (“BY-ND”)
4. Attribution and non-commercial use only (“BY-NC”)
5. Attribution and non-commercial use only, with use only in original form (“BY-NC-ND)
6. Attribution, non-commercial use only, on a share-alike basis (“BY-NC-SA”)
Many of these clauses, either individually or in combination, are relatively unrestrictive, and can
be easily interpreted and implemented. Attribution requirements can generally be met through
reference to the author’s name and/or Website. Forbidding the creation of derivative works
means that the resource needs to be provided on its own, and without the alteration of its
content.
e non-commercial restriction, on the other hand, restricts the use of the resource in
commercial contexts, but can quickly become complicated. e text in the Canadian version of
the licence excludes use that “is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage
or private monetary compensation” (Creative Commons, 2010a). Some have understood this to
mean that the provision of the work should not involve any kind of transaction involving
(potential) profit. is would include giving access to the resource on a CD or in a book that is
sold for profit, or on a Webpage that contains advertising (e.g., see: Möller, 2007). However, in
the light of qualifying wording such as “primarily intended” and “private compensation,” such an
interpretation seems overly restrictive. Correspondingly, it is generally understood that such a
resource can be included in a course or other context where the user has paid for access and other
services, as long as it is made available on a not-for-profit basis.
Although this “non-commercial” clause has been variously interpreted, it is the
“share-alike” provision that seems at once to be the most popular and controversial, and it is of
particular relevance for meriting detailed consideration. In the Canadian versions of these
licences, this clause permits users of a work to “to create and reproduce derivative works” but only
under “the same terms and conditions as the licence granted… under this licence” (Creative
Commons, 2010b). e American version of this provision is utilized by Wikipedia.org and its
sister projects, as well by owners of about 50 million photos on Flickr.com. is particular type of
restriction has been referred to as “copyle,” implying a kind of inverse of the restrictions defined
in copyright. Instead of forbidding the redistribution and alteration of a particular work, this
restriction allows these actions, but only under the condition that resulting works continue to be
distributed under the same terms. A photo from Flickr licensed in this way could be used “freely”
in course documentation, but would require that documentation to similarly be “freely” available
for use and adaptation.
is type of licensing has been derisively characterized as “viral” or even as a “cancer”
by commercial developers and vendors (most prominently, Steve Ballmer of Microso; see:
Greene, 2001). Such characterizations arise from objections to the fact that the “copyle”
licensing requirement can be transmitted from a relatively small resource to an entire work, and
can have the effect of changing a whole program, book or Web resource work from being

22

23

Small Cities Imprint

protected under “copyright” to being more freely open under “copyle.” rough the addition of
a relatively small component bearing a Creative Commons “share-alike” licence, in other words,
an entire aggregate resource would now have to be made available without any restrictions on its
further distribution and revision. is also implies that the resource has to be freed of unnecessary
technological barriers impeding access (e.g. being “locked” behind password protection, or being
distributed in a PDF format that does not allow for editing, copying and other operations)1 . is
presents obvious difficulties related to branding, quality assurance and possibly also the larger
business model of some non-profit institutions.
However, this provision to “share-alike” is subject to interpretation and certain
limitations, and the extended legal documentation that constitutes both the Canadian and US
versions of this licence identifies an important set of exceptions. ese exceptions are outlined in
the definition of “collective work” in the licence:
“Collective Work” means a work, such as a dictionary, yearbook, encyclopedia, or a
newspaper, review magazine or singular periodical and any work written in distinct parts
by different authors, or in which works or parts of works of different authors are
incorporated. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a
Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this licence. (Creative Commons
2010b)
is definition presents the collective work, in other words, as kind of aggregate resource which is
effectively exempt from the “viral” characteristics of copyle. A copyle resource (with a creative
commons “share-alike” licence) can be “incorporated” into such a collective work—for example, a
“review magazine or singular periodical”—without the resulting aggregation being seen simply as
a “derivative work” and as subject as a whole to copyle. is exception is made in the case of
works that are aggregations of multiple contributions, with each contribution (in the words of the
American version of the licence) “constituting [a] separate and independent” work in itself.
All of these considerations are important, given that many organizations (such as colleges or
museums) typically retain copyright of resources created or compiled by employees and apply
such licensing to content they provide over the Web. is reality needs to be understood in
combination with further factors: namely, that many online works are licensed on a “share-alike”
or copyle basis (e.g. all of Wikipedia), and that educational organizations lack the resources to
pay for the use of other copyrighted works. Taken all together, these factors have a wide range of
specific implications for different types of content, different kinds of use and different forms of
licensing. Many of these implications hinge on the definition and interpretation of the notion of
“collected works” as discussed above. e tables below attempt to systematize some of these
implications, showing how combinations of copyle and (conventional) copyright resources—
and the kind of collective work that they would constitute together—may or may not meet the
requirements of share-alike licensing. Also, in as many cases as possible, examples of collections
providing the type of resource referenced are collections that are ranked and reviewed in this
report.

1 “You may not Use the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner

inconsistent with the terms of this Licence Agreement”. (Creative Commons, 2010b)

Friesen

Table 1: Combinations of cultural and educational works likely to constitute a collective work
In this case, it seems quite clear that a number of kinds of share alike or copyle resources could be
used together with copyright resources to constitute a collective work (and thus be adaptable to
the conventional copyright practices of many organizations, despite share-alike requirements).
Copyleft Resource

Copyright Resources Collective Work incorporating both

Textbook (e.g., from Online course
“Course” constituted through the provision
textbookrevolution.org resources or a “course of the two resources.
, see below)
manual”
Article (e.g., from
Other articles as
Edited collection of readings associated
DOAJ)
readings
with another offering (e.g. course, exhibit)
Video
or
Audio Other multimedia
Multimedia resources part of a display,
podcast
resources
Website or course

Table 2: Combinations of works that may constitute collective works
Given the terms of the above wording for a collective work, it is difficult to be certain about the
status of other resource types and their combinations on other kinds of collective works.
Copyleft Resource

Copyright Resource

Collective Work incorporating
both
Podcast (accessed via Integrated resource online (e.g. a Integrated resource linking to
iTunes)
resource instructing user to access and requiring the use of other
iTunes podcasts at a specific
resources.
point).
Collection of
Integrated course resource online Integrated resource requiring the
resources (e.g.
referencing specific resources in use of other resources.
merlot.org;
the copyleft collection.
Wikipedia.org)

Table 3: Combinations of works that do not constitute collective works
Finally, given the terms of the wording, above, it is nearly certain that collective works developed
from the following types of resources would not be allowed.
Copyleft Resource Copyright Resource

Collective Work incorporating
both
Interactive resource Specific exercises for the use of the Fully integrated course manual
(e.g. simulation from simulation.
or other kind of resource.
merlot.org)
Photograph from
Text referencing photo or diagram Fully integrated course manual
Flickr or diagram
and its particular contents.
or other kind of resource.
from Wikipedia

24

25

Small Cities Imprint

Video or Audio
Web page from course materials
podcast (e.g. clip
that directly embeds YouTube
from YouTube EDU) player and clip, and adds
contextualizing text.

Password protected Web
(HTML) documents constituting
course materials.

Based on these resource combinations listed above, it is important to note that types of resources
and forms of integration are of paramount importance in considering the legal ramifications of
the use of many creative commons resources. As long as resources licensed under the “share-alike”
provision are unmodified and otherwise retain their integrity as individual works, it seems that
they can be brought together with other materials to constitute Collective Works, especially if
these collective works are loosely rather than tightly integrated.

SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR SELECTION AND RANKING
e reason for the extended discussion of licensing terms, above, and the examples of their
application in different situations derives from the fact that licensing is the most important and
complex criterion involved in the selection and ranking of collections of resources. is criterion
as well as the others used in creating and ranking the listing provided in this report are as follows:
1. Licensing flexibility (rated out of 5): those resource collections whose resources are licenced
in a highly flexible manner, and/or can be readily used in a Collective Work, as discussed
above. e criterion for this involves not only the specific licensing of the work, but also the
kind of aggregation and integration that is or is not allowed using the types of resources
featured in a given collection.
2. uality (rated out of 3): e quality of the resource collection is generally assessed through
reference to independent reviews of the resource, or the existence of peer reviews for the
resources collected. Also considered are the reputation of sponsor or affiliate, and the history
of the resource collection.
3. Stability (rated out of 3): e stability of the resource collection is assessed either in terms of
its longevity (i.e.: number of years in existence), or its affiliation to an institution.
4. Fitness for purpose (rated out of 5): e suitability of the resources collected for open course
designs, based on the subject matter and type of resource involved. is criterion is applied
and explained on an item-by-item basis.
A number of unexpected results were produced by applying these rankings to a range
of collections. First, there are unfortunately no resource collections that combine peer review or
other standard quality assurance processes to resources that are, at the same time, exempt from
copyle limitations. ere are collections that provide resources of varying quality which can be
adapted to conventional copyright approaches, but the precise quality of these offerings needs to
be evaluated on a resource-by-resource basis. Second, there are many collections with resources of
uniformly high quality. However, because these collections feature resources that would be

Friesen

valuable for re-use and adaptation in the form of smaller works or units, and because they use
copyle licensing, they are ranked relatively low in their potential value. So there is an
unfortunate pattern of mutual exclusion: collections allowing for flexible use lack quality
assurance, and collections of uniformly high quality provide resources that are not readily
adaptable to conventionally copyrighted uses.
However, three resource collections present encouraging—albeit limited—
exceptions to this pattern. ese are Wikimedia Commons, Flickr and Connexions. ese three
collections are large, well-known, and while they do not have peer review, they have few or no
copyle limitations, giving them a high degree of licensing flexibility.
Top-Ranked Collections (rated 9 or higher)
rated Connexions
URL: http://cnx.org
No. of Resources: about 15,000
14
instructional “modules”
Stability: High (3). In existence since 1999; identified Quality: Varies (2). Connexions
closely with and supported by Rice University.
is working towards a peer-review
approach.
Description: “a place to view and share educational material made of small knowledge
chunks called modules that can be organized as courses, books, reports, etc.” Covers all
levels of education, but has a post-secondary emphasis.
Licensing: (5) All resources are available for use requiring attribution only (i.e. an
indication of their authorship). In other words, all resources are exempted from copyleft
licensing. As a result, the instructional units can be mixed with others to create derivative
resources that can be subject to any kind of licensing.
Fitness for purpose: (4) Despite the varying quality of the resources in this collection, the
licensing used makes this collection of significant potential strategic value to Open
Learning. The emphasis on post-secondary and North American education, as well as the
availability of some resource sets as textbooks further adds to this value.
rated DOAJ Directory of URL:
No. of Resources: Over 4000
14
Open Access
journals; likely well over 30,000
http://www.doaj.org
Journals
articles
Stability: High (3). In existence since 2002; selected Quality: High (3). All resources
contents are archived digitally.
(articles) are subject to peer
review.
Description: “This service covers free, full text, quality-controlled scientific and scholarly
journals. We aim to cover all subjects and languages.”
Licensing: (5) Articles of the kind collected by the DOAJ can be aggregated to form
collective works; many of the articles provided are licenced using Creative Commons
licences.

26

27

Small Cities Imprint

Fitness for purpose: (3) Not, strictly speaking, a collection of educational or cultural
resources, but potentially of great value for post-secondary usage and other contexts in
which it is appropriate to expose users to academic writing and research. Using articles
from this collection obviates the need for library licensing of specific articles, and for users
to navigate access procedures usually associated with this kind of institutional licensing.
All subject areas are covered in this collection.
rated Wikimedia Commons URL:
No. of Resources: more than
13
commons.wikimedia.org 5,000,000
Stability: High (3) Wikimedia Commons went online in Quality: Varies (2). Contents
2004, is closely affiliated with the Wikipedia project, and are not peer-reviewed in a
is a part of the Wikimedia project. It consequently has a strictly systematic manner.
relatively robust funding model.
Quality needs to be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis.
Description: “a repository of images, sound and other multimedia files. It is a project of
the Wikimedia Foundation, from which uploaded files can be used across all Wikimedia
projects in all languages, including Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource and Wikinews, or
downloaded for offsite use.”
Licensing: (4) Licensing conditions vary, with many resources being associated with
copyleft licences. However, there are also many resources (above all images and diagrams)
that are available as a part of the public domain, meaning that their use is unrestricted.
Fitness for purpose: (4) Despite the need to evaluate quality on a case-by-case basis, this
collection has significant potential for many organizations, especially since it can be used
to provide images (often of historical, cultural or scientific value) that are explicitly in the
public domain.
rated Wikibooks
URL: http://wikibooks.org No. of Resources: 37,978
13
pages or content modules
Stability: (3). Wikibooks went online in 2003, is closely Quality: Varies (2). Contents
affiliated with the Wikipedia project, and is a part of the are not peer-reviewed in a
Wikimedia project. It consequently has a relatively robust strictly systematic manner.
funding model. A particular, stable version of any given Quality needs to be evaluated
book or resource can be readily accessed using a stable on a case-by-case basis.
URL, avoiding the problems presented by ongoing
editorial work.
Description: “Wikibooks is a Wikimedia project for collaboratively writing educational
content on various subjects.”
Licensing: (4) All contents are subject to copyleft licensing. However, because books are
generally not considered as constituting parts of derivative or collective works, the
resources here can be readily used by organizations as whole books or book chapters.
Fitness for purpose: (4) Despite the need to evaluate quality on a case-by-case basis, the
right resource for the right purpose could be of great value.

Friesen

rated TED Talks
URL: www.ted.com
No. of Resources: over 450 20 min.
10
talks
Stability: (2). Supported by the Sapling Foundation Quality: High (3). Process for
and by corporate sponsors, but in existence on the selecting speakers is unclear, but
Web only since 2007.
only high-profile academics and
others are selected.
Description: “We're building here a clearinghouse that offers free knowledge and
inspiration from the world’s most inspired thinkers, and also a community of curious souls
to engage with ideas and each other.”
Licensing: (2) The collection makes available relatively short or small resources using CC
licensing, but also requires them to be shared alike.
Fitness for purpose (3) It is permissible to link to individual resources conventionallylicenced material, but integrating the material in any other way is not advisable.
rated MIT Open
9
Courseware

No. of Resources: 1900 full
courses, “virtually all” of MITs
http://ocw.mit.edu
courses
Stability: (3) In existence since 1999; identified Quality: High (3). Quality of
closely with and supported by the Massachusetts courses and events generally assured
Institute of Technology. World famous.
through the reputation of the host
university. Criteria for technical
quality are also in place.
Description: “MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) is a web-based publication of virtually all
MIT course content. OCW is open and available to the world and is a permanent MIT
activity.”
Licensing: (2) All materials are made available through a CC licence requiring them to be
attributed and “shared alike.” Materials are likely to be used in part, and not as a whole
(e.g. in the way a textbook or research article is used). This means that it is that the
material in this collection generally cannot be adapted in the development of copyright
material.
Fitness for purpose (2) It should be possible to link to individual resources from courses
and other contexts, but integrating the material in any other way will be problematic from
a licensing perspective.
rated Flickr

URL:

URL: www.flickr.com No. of Resources: 133 million
available via Creative Commons
9
licences
Stability: (3) Owned by Yahoo Inc., in operation
Quality: Varies (2). Quality needs
since 2004.
to be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.

28

29

Small Cities Imprint

Description: An “online photo management and sharing application” that offers free
accounts to users. Its collection is comprised almost entirely of users’ photographs, but
videos are also collected.
Licensing: (4) The type of licence varies from one resource to another, but a very large
number of resources (80 million) are available without share-alike restrictions.
Fitness for purpose (2) Despite the need to evaluate quality on a case-by-case basis, this
collection has significant potential for many organizations, especially since it can be used
to provide images (often of historical, cultural or scientific value) that are explicitly in the
public domain. 60 museums, art galleries, archives and libraries have added substantial
collections to Flickr’s creative commons works.

Friesen

Works Cited
Creative Commons. (2010a). Creative Commons Legal Code: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5
Canada. 2010. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ca/
legalcode.en>.
Creative Commons. (2010b). Creative Commons Legal Code: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada.
2010. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ca/legalcode.en>.
Greene, T.C. “Ballmer: ‘Linux is a cancer’ Contaminates all other soware with Hippie GPL rubbish.”
e Register. 2 June 2001. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/
ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/>.
Hewlett Foundation. “What status for ‘open’? An examination of the licensing policies of open
educational organizations and projects.” 2008. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. <http ://
learn.creativecommons.org/what-status-for-open>.
Möller, E. “e Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons-NC License.” 2007. Web.
29 Jan. 2010. <http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC>.

About the Author
Dr. Norm Friesen is Canada Research Chair in E-Learning Practices at ompson Rivers
University in Kamloops. Dr. Friesen is the author of “Re-inking E-Learning Research:
Foundations, Methods and Practices” (Peter Lang, 2009), and is co-editor of the open, online
peer-reviewed journal, “Phenomenology & Practice”.

30