On David’s Heresy
The respectable David Wiley proposes that proponents of “Open Educational Resources” simplify their message. “Open” is too confusing, so we should use terms that policymakers already understand. We should just say that, “Educational materials created with public dollars should be placed in the public domain” (emph. added).
David’s heresy is in the exclusion of GPL-like conditions on reuse. “Public Domain” means the user can do anything with the work, whereas some people (e.g. ESR) only consider something “open” when its use includes what CC would call share-alike. I remember this (inconclusive) discussion from David’s OER course last year, and it’s just a content-level version of the endless BSD-GPL argument.
Given that using the term “Public Domain” as David advocates does not encompass what many feel to be the essence of “openness,” I would argue against its use.
I’ve explored the issues of neologisms in complex-yet-important emergent theories (specifically pertaining to validity in assessment), and I don’t think there is a magic bullet answer. Those trying to clarify complex issues (like OER) can…
- Use an existing term in its original, accepted sense (“Public Domain”), but then they risk excluding the aspects of the concept that extend beyond that old term. Conversely, the old term may describe aspects that are not included in the new concept. There may be a reason for which the old term wasn’t used to describe the new concept.
- Use an existing term, but redefine it (“open”). Theorists who use this method must explain the new meaning and overcome the established meaning. The resulting confusion is often paralyzing. I think this is David’s central point, and it is valid.
- Invent a new term from scratch. The advantage is that there will be no confusion; the disadvantage is that there will be a lot of ignorance. You will still have to explain what the term means. See my neologism VIAR.
- Invent a new term by adding modifiers to existing nouns. Proponents of the term “Unobstructed License” seem to have taken this approach. As David noted, this yields a term that is often more confusing that either the noun or the modifier. Oh, and the new term still need explanation.
The bottom line is that new and complex concepts have to be explained. There are effective and ineffective ways of explaining them, but, short of telepathy, we have to go through that explanatory process.
Some may argue that policymakers do not need to grok the OERs, they just need to know enough to vote for policy that supports and encourages their use. I would disagree: Cursory understandings will be easily swayed by disinformation. Having groked policymakers is the goal. 
May 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
I’d argue for the plainest language possible that conveys the central notion.
Free to use or adapt.
d.
June 28th, 2010 at 9:18 am
I agree. Public domain has some specific legal implications that make it unsuitable for describing the range of ways that OER creators might license their work. Public Commons, ala the work of David Bollier, James Boyle, and Lawrence Lessig, would seem to be the best choice to communicate what OER needs here, as well as tying it to specific economic theory and cultural criticism that helps to explain the ideas behind OER. While legislators will likely not know all that “public commons” conveys, it’s likely many may have some sense of what it means, as certainly as much as they understand what public domain is.