I wrote something the other day to the effect that anyone can reproduce whatever they want from the blog.
I write the blog to speak my mind, to open up discussion, to get people thinking, to encourage those who need encouragement, and to shine a light where it is needed into some dark corners of our public life.
A reader suggested that the blog should be part of “creative commons.”
I wasn’t sure what that meant, and did some checking.
He was right.
So here is the deal now.
You are still free to copy, distribute, quote at will.
Please attribute what I write to me as the author.
Don’t modify or revise what I wrote, though obviously you can say whatever you want about it in your own voice.
This is the information now on the “about” page:
You are free:
- to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
Under the following conditions:
- Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
- Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
- No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
With the understanding that:
- Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
- Public Domain — Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
- Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I have a question, though.
What does “No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work,” mean? Specifically, what does “build upon” prohibit?
Can other writers still embed sections of text, and then expand on how that, to show how it is illustrated by their specific conditions?
I think it means that if you quote my work, cite my name. Don’t use the words and pretend you wrote them.
The “No Derivative Works” might work against your purposes. By using extensive passages in other long blog posts, people are transforming and building upon your work. I think your intent is to avoid having others change your words. You want quotations to be treated as such.
It is my sense that ND goes further than that. The license you chose (often stated as: CC-BY-NC-ND) is very close to full copyright. You are basically relieving others of the need to ask permission (clear copyright) for reprint, but not to allow inclusion, or expansion in other works, really.
You are not limiting fair use rights for commentary, of course. Fair use, as I understand it, is the rule enabling criticism in addition to commentary.
The real question is whether long quotations would violate both “Fair use” and “No Derivative Works.” Short quotations (with commentary) and entire reproductions do not pose a problem, as long as they are correctly attributed.
The “No Derivative Works” provision does not cancel “fair use.” The Creative Commons license states clearly that “fair use” still holds.
Quoting a blog post would normally fall under “fair use” and not under “building upon” a work. You “build upon” something when you add to what’s actually there. That’s different from commenting on it.
As long as the person quotes precisely, without altering the original work, and gives correct attribution, and as long as he/she distinguishes clearly between the quotation and the commentary, this should fall under “fair use,” provided that the quotations are short in relation to the commentary.
Here’s the definition of “fair use” on Stanford’s “Copyright and Fair Use” website:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html
Now, someone could violate fair use (and the “No Derivative Works” provision) by quoting from your blog and attaching comments or additions to certain sentences in bold or italics. While this could be considered commentary, it doesn’t follow standard quoting conventions and could confuse a reader.
LIkewise, if someone neglected to indent a block quotation, it could come across as his or her own writing. That, too, would be a violation of “fair use” and “No Derivative Works.”
Long quotations with short commentary could be problematic insofar as they might violate “fair use.”
But the problematic cases are few, and of the Creative Commons licenses, this one seems to offer the most appropriate permissions and protections. The less restrictive ones allow people to tweak and build on your work, and that would not be good.
Also, parody is permitted under “fair use.” That’s a triickier matter, because it obviously involves tweaking the original.
Diane,
I was looking for a way to write you personally, but will use this forum as it relates to my question. A few days ago you published a blog entitled A Scholar in Michigan Defends the Schools: https://dianeravitch.net/2012/06/24/a-scholar-in-michigan-defends-the-schools/
I am that scholar and greatly appreciate what you had to say about the book, which is freely available online. Would you permit my using your statement in that blog with my book?
Yes, of course