SCOPE of Open Education: A New Framework for Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i4.7356Keywords:
engagement, open education, motivation, research framework, social justiceAbstract
The field of open education and research on the topic has notably expanded since the introduction of the term 20 years ago. Given these developments, a framework to structure research inquiry is necessary to ground and organize findings in open education. We propose the SCOPE framework for open education research: social justice, cost, outcomes, perceptions, and engagement. In this article, we explain how this framework emphasizes the need for social justice at the forefront of open education research. In addition, we incorporate existing theories in social justice, motivation, cognition, pedagogy, and engagement into each of the components to propose theoretical connections to future open education research. We suggest areas in which future research is needed. Finally, we conclude with suggestions as to how the SCOPE framework may be useful when connecting open education to open science and open scholarship as well as a call for considering intersectionality and critical methods in quantitative research (QuantCrit) in future inquiry.
References
Adams, K., & Dannick, S. (2022). Repairing the curriculum: Using OER to fill gaps. In C. J. Ivory & A. Pashia (Eds.), Using open educational resources to promote social justice (pp. 23–40). Association of College and Research Libraries. https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/booksanddigitalresources/digital/9780838936771_OA.pdf
Adil, H. M., Ali, S., Sultan, M., Ashiq, M., & Rafiq, M. (2022). Open education resources’ benefits and challenges in the academic world: A systematic review. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-02-2022-0049
Apple, M., & Christian-Smith, L. (1991). The politics of the textbook (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315021089
Azadbakht, E., Schultz, T., & Arellano, J. (2021). Not open for all: Accessibility of open textbooks. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 34(1), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.557
Bali, M., Cronin, C., & Jhangiani, R. S. (2020). Framing open educational practices from a social justice perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.565
Barker, R. (2003). The social work dictionary (5th ed.). NASW Press.
Barron, K. E., & Hulleman, C. S. (2015). Expectancy-value-cost model of motivation. In J. S. Eccles & K. Salmela-Aro (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences: Motivational psychology (pp. 261–271). Elsevier.
Belikov, O. M., & Bodily, R. (2016). Incentives and barriers to OER adoption: A qualitative analysis of faculty perceptions. Open Praxis, 8(3), 235-246. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.308
Blankstein, M. (2022). Ithaka S & R US Faculty Survey 2021. Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, Etc. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Article 225. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/225
Bliss, T. J., Robinson, T. J., Hilton, J., & Wiley, D. A. (2013). An OER COUP: College teacher and student perceptions of open educational resources. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2013(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5334/2013-04
Blomgren, C., & McPherson, I. (2018). Scoping the nascent: An analysis of K–12 OER research 2012–2017. Open Praxis, 10(4), 359–375. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/207176/
Brandle, S. (2020). It’s (not) in the reading: American government textbooks’ limited representation of historically marginalized groups. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(4), 734–740. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520000797
Castillo, W., & Gillborn. D. (2022). How to “QuantCrit:” practices and questions for education data researchers and users. (EdWorkingPaper: 22-546). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/v5kh-dd65
Clinton, V. (2018). Savings without sacrifices: A case study of open-source textbook adoption. Open Learning: The Journal of Distance and Open Learning, 33(3), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1486184
Clinton, V. (2019). Cost, outcomes, use, and perceptions of open educational resources in psychology: A narrative review of the literature. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 18(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725718799511
Clinton, V., & Khan, S. (2019). Efficacy of open textbook adoption on learning performance and course withdrawal rates: A meta-analysis. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419872212
Clinton-Lisell, V. (2021). Open pedagogy: A systematic review of empirical findings. Journal of Learning for Development, 8(2), 255–268. https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/511
Clinton-Lisell, V. (2023). How does OER efficacy vary based on student age and course modality? American Journal of Distance Education, 37(3), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2022.2077061
Clinton-Lisell, V., & Gwozdz, L. (2023). Understanding student experiences of renewable and traditional assignments. College Teaching, 71(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2023.2179591
Clow, D. (2013). An overview of learning analytics. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(6), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827653
Collyer, F. M. (2018). Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South. Current Sociology, 66(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116680020
Crawford, C. E. (2019) The one-in-ten: Quantitative critical race theory and the education of the ‘new (white) oppressed’. Journal of Education Policy, 34(3), 423-444, https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1531314
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039
Croft, B., & Brown, M. (2020). Inclusive open education: Presumptions, principles, and practices. Distance Education, 41(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1757410
Curby, T., McKnight, P., Alexander, L., & Erchov, S. (2020). Sources of variance in end-of-course student evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1607249
Deimann, M., & Farrow, R. (2013). Rethinking OER and their use: Open education as bildung. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1370
DeRosa, R., & Robinson, S. (2017). From OER to open pedagogy: Harnessing the power of open. In R. Biswas-Diener & R. S. Jhangiani (Eds.), Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science. Ubiquity Press. https://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/books/10.5334/bbc/read/#epubcfi(/6/2[id001]!/4/1:0)
Domingo, C. R., Gerber, N. C., Harris, D., Mamo, L., Pasion, S. G., Rebanal, R. D., & Rosser, S. V. (2022). More service or more advancement: Institutional barriers to academic success for women and women of color faculty at a large public comprehensive minority-serving state university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000292
Fan, Y., Shepherd, L. J., Slavich, E., Waters, D., Stone, M., Abel, R., & Johnston, E. L. (2019). Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters. PLOS ONE, 14(2), Article e0209749. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209749
Farrow, R., Pitt, R., & Weller, M. (2020). Open textbooks as an innovation route for open science pedagogy. Education for Information, 36(3), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-190260
Feldon, D. F., Callan, G., Juth, S., & Jeong, S. (2019). Cognitive load as motivational cost. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09464-6
Fialkowski, M. K., Calabrese, A., Tilinghast, B., Titchenal, C. A., Meinke, W., Banna, J. C., & Draper, J. (2020). Open educational resource textbook impact on students in an introductory nutrition course. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 52(4), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2019.08.006
Finley, S. C., Gray, B. M., & Martin, L. L. (2018). “Affirming our values”: African American scholars, white virtual mobs, and the complicity of white university administrators. Journal of Academic Freedom, 9, 1–20. https://www.aaup.org/JAF9/%E2%80%9Caffirming-our-values%E2%80%9D-african-american-scholars-white-virtual-mobs-and-complicity-white#.ZG1dWuzMJ6o
Flake, J. K., Barron, K. E., Hulleman, C., McCoach, B. D., & Welsh, M. E. (2015). Measuring cost: The forgotten component of expectancy-value theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.002
Fraser, F. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a “post-socialist” age. New Left Review, 1(212). https://newleftreview.org/I/212/nancy-fraser-from-redistribution-to-recognition-dilemmas-of-justice-in-a-post-socialist-age
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Grahe, J. E., Cuccolo, K., Leighton, D. C., & Cramblet Alvarez, L. D. (2020). Open science promotes diverse, just, and sustainable research and educational outcomes. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 19(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725719869164
Gillborn, D., Warmington, P., & Demack, S. (2018). QuantCrit: education, policy, ‘big data’ and principles for a critical race theory of statistics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 158-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377417
Griffiths, R., Mislevy, J., & Wang, S. (2022). Encouraging impacts of an open education resource degree initiative on college students’ progress to degree. Higher Education, 84(5), 1089–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00817-9
Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational resources. Educational Technology, 55(4), 3-13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44430383
Hilton, J., III. (2016). Open educational resources and college textbook choices: A review of research on efficacy and perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 573–590. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-016-9434-9
Hilton, J., III. (2020). Open educational resources, student efficacy, and user perceptions: A synthesis of research published between 2015 and 2018. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 853–876. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-019-09700-4
Hodgkinson-Williams, C. A., & Trotter, H. (2018). A social justice framework for understanding open educational resources and practices in the global south. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v5i3.312
Hollich, S. (2022). The unrealized promise of OER: An exploration of copyright, the open movement, and social justice. In C. J. Ivory & A. Pashia (Eds.), Using open educational resources to promote social justice (pp. 3–21). Association of College and Research Libraries. https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/booksanddigitalresources/digital/9780838936771_OA.pdf
hooks, bell. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203957769
Howard, V. J., & Whitmore, C. B. (2020). Evaluating student perceptions of open and commercial psychology textbooks. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00139
Hwang, G.-J., & Chien, S.-Y. (2022). Definition, roles, and potential research issues of the metaverse in education: An artificial intelligence perspective. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100082
Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2010). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9131-x
Janssen, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2020). Applying collaborative cognitive load theory to computer-supported collaborative learning: Towards a research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09729-5
Jhangiani, R. S., Dastur, F. N., Le Grand, R., & Penner, K. (2018). As good or better than commercial textbooks: Students’ perceptions and outcomes from using open digital and open print textbooks. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5
Jordan, J. (2023). Compounded labor: Developing OER as a marginalized creator. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2023/compounded-labor-developing-oer-as-a-marginalized-creator/
Kaerwer, K., & Pritchett, M. (2023). Critical race theory in education: How banning its tenets undermines our best hope for equity in education. Behavior and Social Issues, 32, 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-023-00130-9
Katz, S. (2019). Student textbook purchasing: The hidden cost of time. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 7(1), 12–18. https://jpaap.ac.uk/JPAAP/article/view/349
Kew, S. N., & Tasir, Z. (2022). Learning analytics in online learning environment: A systematic review on the focuses and the types of student-related analytics data. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(2), 405–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09541-2
Kim, D., Lee, Y., Leite, W. L., & Huggins-Manley, A. C. (2020). Exploring student and teacher usage patterns associated with student attrition in an open educational resource-supported online learning platform. Computers & Education, 156, Article 103961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103961
Kouzoukas, G. (2019). Engaging first generation students. In S. J. Quaye, S. R. Harper, & S. L. Pendakur (Eds.). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 287–306). Routledge.
Krebs, R., Rothstein, B., & Roelle, J. (2022). Rubrics enhance accuracy and reduce cognitive load in self-assessment. Metacognition and Learning, 17(2), 627–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09302-1
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Lambert, S. R. (2018). Changing our (dis) course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of open education. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v5i3.290
Lantrip, J., & Ray, J. (2021). Faculty perceptions and usage of OER at Oregon community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 45(12), 896–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2020.1838967
McGowan, V. (2020). Institution initiatives and support related to faculty development of open educational resources and alternative textbooks. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 35(1), 24–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1562328
Nagle, C., & Vitez, K. (2021). Fixing the broken textbook market. US PIRG. https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Fixing%20the%20Broken%20Textbook%20Market%2C%203e%20February%202021.pdf
Nouri, A., & Sajjadi, S. M. (2014). Emancipatory pedagogy in practice: Aims, principles and curriculum orientation. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 5(2), 76–87. https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/228
Nusbaum, A. T. (2020). Who gets to wield academic Mjolnir?: On worthiness, knowledge curation, and using the power of the people to diversify OER. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.559
Nusbaum, A. T., & Cuttler, C. (2020). Hidden impacts of OER: Effects of OER on instructor ratings and course selection. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2020.00072
Nusbaum, A. T., Cuttler, C., & Swindell, S. (2020). Open educational resources as a tool for educational equity: Evidence from an introductory psychology class. Frontiers in Education, 4. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2019.00152
Open Education Group. (2023). The COUP framework. https://openedgroup.org/coup
Omolade, B. (1993). A black feminist pedagogy. Women's Studies Quarterly, 21(3/4), 31-38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40022003
Otto, D., Schroeder, N., Diekmann, D., & Sander, P. (2021). Trends and gaps in empirical research on open educational resources (OER): A systematic mapping of the literature from 2015 to 2019. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(4), Article ep325. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11145
Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 7893–7925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9
Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2020). Cognitive-load theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420922183
Pitt, R. (2015). Mainstreaming open textbooks: Educator perspectives on the impact of OpenStax College open textbooks. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i4.2381
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. Christenson, A.L. Reschley, & C. Wylie (Eds) Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2022). Agentic engagement. In S. Christenson, A.L. Reschley, & C. Wylie (Eds) Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 95–107). Springer.
Rideau, R. (2021). “We’re just not acknowledged”: An examination of the identity taxation of full-time non-tenure-track Women of Color faculty members. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000139
Roberts-Crews, J. (2022, September 22). Assumptions about labor in open education [Keynote address]. Open Texas Conference, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Sablan, J. R. (2019). Can you really measure that? Combining critical race theory and quantitative methods. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 178–203. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3102/0002831218798325
Samson, R.L., Clinton-Lisell, V., & Fischer, L. (2021). Let students choose: Examining the impact of open educational resources on performance in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(3), 745-755. https://doi.org/10.1021.acs.jcemed.0c00595
Santos, A. (2018). Instructional strategies for game-based learning. In Gamification in education: Breakthroughs in research and practice (pp. 472–481). IGI Global.
Schultz, T. A., & Azadbakht, E. (2021). Open but not for all: A survey of open educational resource librarians on accessibility. College & Research Libraries, 82(5), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.5.755
Seiferle-Valencia, M. (2020). It’s not (just) about the cost: Academic libraries and intentionally engaged OER for social justice. Library Trends, 69(2), 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2020.0042
Spica, E. (2023). Inclusive access: A multi-institutional study of academic outcomes from a statewide community college automatic billing e-textbook pilot. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 47(3), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2021.1990161
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
Thomas, W. J., & Bernhardt, B. R. (2018). Helping keep the costs of textbooks for students down: Two approaches. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2018.1456844
Thomas, A., Dunbar, E., Wharton, R. M., & Greco, A. N. (2022). The impact of the inclusive access antitrust lawsuit on US college bookstores, book publishers, and educational publishers. Publishing Research Quarterly, 38(3), 475–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09905-1
Tietjen, P., & Asino, T. I. (2021). What is open pedagogy? Identifying commonalities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5161
Tillinghast, B., Fialkowski, M. K., & Draper, J. (2020). Exploring aspects of open educational resources through OER-enabled pedagogy. Frontiers in Education, 5(76). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2020.00076
Tlili, A., Altinay, F., Huang, R., Altinay, Z., Olivier, J., Mishra, S., Jemni, M., & Burgos, D. (2022). Are we there yet? A systematic literature review of open educational resources in Africa: A combined content and bibliometric analysis. PLOS ONE, 17(1), Article e0262615. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262615
Todorinova, L., & Wilkinson, Z. T. (2020). Incentivizing faculty for open educational resources (OER) adoption and open textbook authoring. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(6), Article 102220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102220
Van Allen, J., & Katz, S. (2019). Developing open practices in teacher education: An example of integrating OER and developing renewable assignments. Open Praxis, 11(3), 311–319. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.767590955332474
Vojtech, G., & Grissett, J. (2017). Student perceptions of college faculty who use OER. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3032
Weller, M. (2020). Open and free access to education for all. In D. Burgos (Ed.), Radical solutions and open science: An open approach to boost higher education (pp. 1–15). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4276-3_1
Weller, M. (2022). The rise and development of digital education. In O. Zawacki-Richter & I. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education (pp. 1–17). Springer.
Werth, E., & Williams, K. (2021). What motivates students about open pedagogy? Motivational regulation through the lens of self-determination theory. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(3), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i3.5373
Wiley, D. A. (2021). Open educational resources: Undertheorized research and untapped potential. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 411–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09907-w
Wiley, D. (2014, March 5). The access compromise and the 5th R. Improving Learning. https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3221
Wiley, D., & Hilton Iii, J. L. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601
Winkelmes, M. A., Boye, A., & Tapp, S. (2019). Transparent design in higher education. Stylus Publishing.
Wynants, S., & Dennis, J. (2022). Redesigning a research methods course with personalized, interactive OER: A case study of student perceptions and performance. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 22(1), 138–153. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v22i1.31706
Young, J., & Young, J. (2022). Decoding the data dichotomy: applying QuantCrit to understand racially conscience intersectional meta-analytic research. International Journal of research & method in education, 45(4), 381-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2093847
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The copyright of all content published in IRRODL is retained by the authors.
This copyright agreement and use license ensures, among other things, that an article will be as widely distributed as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific and/or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
