I would hate to see people damage the integrity of my work, so my best recourse is to use the ND term, correct?
Answer:
Perhaps. There is no way for anyone to damage the integrity of your original work, no matter how you have licensed it. That is the nature of digital works: you can create an infinite number of copies and adaptations without ever diminishing the integrity of the original. Given that fact, one should be very careful about whether it makes sense to negate the potential for derivative works to improve on your original. While we cannot ever be sure of outcomes, experience suggests that the majority of derivative works will be valuable contributions to the overall pool of OER. If someone inappropriately adapts your work, you always have the option to disavow any association with the derivative.
If you choose to apply the ND term, then your work may not be derived, which means that the only right beyond standard (all rights reserved) copyright which has been granted is the right to share unlimited copies freely with anyone.
There are a few important circumstances in which the ND term is particularly appropriate. For example, consensus documents (such as standards protocols or committee-generated works) may reflect specific wording choices that are not appropriate to additional amendment. Even here, however, it is usually better to release two versions: a fixed (ND-licensed) version and an adaptable version, since there is always the chance that someone will have insights and ideas for improvement that you would not otherwise be able to leverage.
| Associated Documents: | ,|x| x}} |
|---|---|
| Target audience: | ,|x| x}} |
| Tags: | ,|x| x}} |
