I have a couple suggestions/questions to consider that might help:
Are you copying and pasting from AO's website because that is more convenient? If so, then that might indicate that there is too much copying. It might be better for the AO community at large if you simply linked to the page that has the material you are talking about and said something like, "Instead of the year 2 history recommendations AO suggests here (link to our page), we substituted _______, although we did supplement with the Hiller book they recommend." Does that make sense?
I'm pretty sure under copyright law the limitations on copying even for review purposes is 300 words.
There are several problems with granting blanket permission to somebody to copy and paste from the website on the basis that they are not using Ao to make a profit.
One is that the copycat curricula out there that I know of which has been or is now being sold for profit began by saying they weren't out to make a profit- and I believe most of them meant that when they said it. But things change.
Another is that some of those who say they aren't looking at profiting from our work (and I am not saying either of you are in this group), go to the extra work of stripping out AO affiliate links when they copy and paste our work, and then do the extra work of adding in their own affiliate links. Ummmm..... I see a conflict between words and actions there.
Furthermore, those affiliate links are what we use to pay for the site, to pay for the webhosting, to pay for books that we purchase to review for the curriculum, to pay for the only visit we've ever had where all the Advisory could be together in the same place to work more effectively in person (though we'd love to be able to do this again sometime). We didn't have any affiliate links at all for the first dozen years or so and we paid for all of those things out of our own pockets, and none of us are wealthy (well, except by 3rd world standards, and we don't live in 3rd world countries). While some of us were struggling to make ends meet, we were watching others use our work for the foundation for their business (sometimes by somebody who told us they weren't doing that very thing), which makes us a little skittish about the whole thing.
We've also come to realize that quite often the entire AO community loses out by the liberal copying and pasting that's been going unchecked as well. What happens is busy homeschooling moms see our material copied and pasted and it looks to them (quite mistakenly) like they are seeing an officially recognized 'arm' of AO, and they never bother to click through and see the rest of the material, the resources, the forums, and all their own contributions by way of comments, suggestions, and creation or source materials and sharing of resources goes to the site that copied and pasted our material rather than to the AO community at large.
It also looks like official approval, and we wouldn't always approve of the specific substitutions being made (again, this is a general comment, not specific to the sites of the two previous questioners). So that makes us a little uncomfortable and concerned about a possible dilution of CM's principles and standards. It's not that anybody *needs* our affirmation to make substitutions, of course. It's just that we don't want there to be confusion about whether or not somebody's own adaptations are an extension of AO or something we've looked over and agreed with.
We love it when people want to talk *about* the curriculum, especially in such a way that encourages others to join the forum and add their contributions. This contributes to the community as a whole rather than taking away.
Does that make sense?
Are you copying and pasting from AO's website because that is more convenient? If so, then that might indicate that there is too much copying. It might be better for the AO community at large if you simply linked to the page that has the material you are talking about and said something like, "Instead of the year 2 history recommendations AO suggests here (link to our page), we substituted _______, although we did supplement with the Hiller book they recommend." Does that make sense?
I'm pretty sure under copyright law the limitations on copying even for review purposes is 300 words.
There are several problems with granting blanket permission to somebody to copy and paste from the website on the basis that they are not using Ao to make a profit.
One is that the copycat curricula out there that I know of which has been or is now being sold for profit began by saying they weren't out to make a profit- and I believe most of them meant that when they said it. But things change.
Another is that some of those who say they aren't looking at profiting from our work (and I am not saying either of you are in this group), go to the extra work of stripping out AO affiliate links when they copy and paste our work, and then do the extra work of adding in their own affiliate links. Ummmm..... I see a conflict between words and actions there.
Furthermore, those affiliate links are what we use to pay for the site, to pay for the webhosting, to pay for books that we purchase to review for the curriculum, to pay for the only visit we've ever had where all the Advisory could be together in the same place to work more effectively in person (though we'd love to be able to do this again sometime). We didn't have any affiliate links at all for the first dozen years or so and we paid for all of those things out of our own pockets, and none of us are wealthy (well, except by 3rd world standards, and we don't live in 3rd world countries). While some of us were struggling to make ends meet, we were watching others use our work for the foundation for their business (sometimes by somebody who told us they weren't doing that very thing), which makes us a little skittish about the whole thing.
We've also come to realize that quite often the entire AO community loses out by the liberal copying and pasting that's been going unchecked as well. What happens is busy homeschooling moms see our material copied and pasted and it looks to them (quite mistakenly) like they are seeing an officially recognized 'arm' of AO, and they never bother to click through and see the rest of the material, the resources, the forums, and all their own contributions by way of comments, suggestions, and creation or source materials and sharing of resources goes to the site that copied and pasted our material rather than to the AO community at large.
It also looks like official approval, and we wouldn't always approve of the specific substitutions being made (again, this is a general comment, not specific to the sites of the two previous questioners). So that makes us a little uncomfortable and concerned about a possible dilution of CM's principles and standards. It's not that anybody *needs* our affirmation to make substitutions, of course. It's just that we don't want there to be confusion about whether or not somebody's own adaptations are an extension of AO or something we've looked over and agreed with.
We love it when people want to talk *about* the curriculum, especially in such a way that encourages others to join the forum and add their contributions. This contributes to the community as a whole rather than taking away.
Does that make sense?