It is a Serious Offense to Block God

Over at William Patry's copyright blog is discussion concerning the Kansas science curriculum. William encourages dialog by stating...

"I am very much in favor of dialogue and would be happy to see Kansas create their own work and in that work criticize NAS, or vice versa. That would be a fair use. But what I have been assuming is going on is Kansas wanting to reproduce NAS's stuff in toto with any comment."

...and I completely agree with him. I suggest the NAS and NSTA release their curriculum under a creative commons, non-derivative and non-commercial license (or something similar - the point is, control over derivation). That way, students are not harmed by losing quality materials, and the content is put up for - as William says - criticism, but not for cannibalism unless permission is granted. The same would go for any "ID" approved curriculum. The two (or more) could quote each other under "fair use". This would also silence Intelligent Design critics who claim that the NAS and NSTA's intent for hoarding curriculum is to "censor".

Why a CC license? First, speaking as an educator, any educational institution authoring curriculum in the digital age that cannot be shared for non-commercial and/or no-derivative puposes without permission is clearly operating on questionable educational ethics. However, "some rights reserved" are appropriate. Second, a CC-license will maximize the distribution potential of the curriculum. This will allow teachers from all over the world to contribute toward and critique the development of the respective curricula.

My prediction if this happens:

I think science will shake in its boots once I get a chance to contribute to the FSM curriculum. I will make science pay for blatently attempting to stifle the Word about His Noodly Appendage by using copyright as an obstacle. It is a serious offense to block god.

We believers already have a head start on some of the most recent research.