I like the spectrum of openness idea, where content can be open to varying degrees (for example, on one side, “closed” content may be secured by password, payment or otherwise protected, the other side: open, organized, shareable, linkable…e.g. much closer to the 4r framework). In the middle there’s a lot of space (filled by LOADS of content).

I know this is a simplistic view on open content, but if I can link to it, and a student clicking on that link can then access it, isn’t it open? (after all I’m able to add my comments, POV, and engage that content with my students/colleagues freely, so in the absence of an official permission to the 4r’s I can create my own version of it–until the content is removed or hidden). The internet is more open than I think we’d like to admit.

It’s certainly a progressive perspective, but look at how we treat paths and trails in the real world…in many cases, if a public thruway has been established, private owners can’t even close access…so why not establish our ‘thoroughfares’ of openness now?

Irregardless, this discussion is near and dear to my heart, and I thank YOU for leaving the door/window/trail open.

“…I have proposed the 4Rs Framework for thinking about openness specifically with regard to content (including educational resources):

1. Reuse – the right to reuse the content in its unaltered / verbatim form
2. Revise – the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself
3. Remix – the right to combine the original or revised content with other content to create something new
4. Redistribute – the right to make and share copies of the original content, your revisions, or your remixes with others

Resonant value can be found in the first condition listed in the framework. Adding any number of the others to the mix adds further value.

If we could do a great job of promoting and honoring this way of thinking as simply common sense for an open content model, we’d move ahead more quickly, I believe.

The continual debate over terminology keeps us trapped at a sub-optimal stage on the vision -> action trajectory, in my view.

Pedagogical tools and the knowledge they teach are not the same thing! It is the knowledge that must be open for learning gold to emerge from the internet swamp. Knowledge itself is network of cognitive nodes that has nestled into the online open network. It makes little difference if pedagogy is open, nuanced, or behind a wall. Curricula, courses, textbooks, lesson plans — pedagogical content — are great to have online, but are essentially analog teaching tools.

The huge change when knowledge itself is open online is that emergent patterns can mirror directly into the networking mind of a student. Open (yes, binary open) is absolutely necessary for every node that participates in patterns of this sort.

There is more of this stubborn, irritating, aggravating idea – complete with pictures – at my post:
http://tinyurl.com/yl292ov

I wasn’t aware of your blog until now – not sure how I missed it. I’ve subscribed.

Well, right or wrong, at least my view of “ideological purity” is on a list, somewhere.

I don’t quite follow your criticism of my view on Stallman and OERs. I personally think being conflicted is a good thing. I mentioned that Stallman risks being ignored, but that I valued his appeal to ideals. I recognize the risk a stallman-esque appeal to openness bring, but I balanced that by stating the importance of having ideals to which we could react, or orientate ourselves toward.

Your second last paragraph confuses me. You are speaking through a pragmatic filter…and it makes sense only if I adopt that filter as well. I’m not willing to do that. In fact, that’s the heart of my argument. I’m not focused on controlling or producing particular outcomes. I’m focused on advancing a discussion on ideals that exceeds a pragmatic orientation. If nothing practical is produced as an outcome, well, I’ll be dismayed (ideals translate and influence pragmatics), but that’s fine. I simply want to have a conversation that fosters my best thinking and participate with others in their best thinking on openness. I view it as a responsibility in light of the changes facing education. As I stated in my initial post, I’m concerned that a foundation of pragmatics will have a short life. Ideological purity provides a stronger, more suitable, future focus.

I am not anti-pragmatic. And I’m not zealous (i.e. – your blog subtitle of pragmatism over zeal). Idealogical purity is a slightly pretentious term, but I use it intentionally to draw attention to the importance of considering openness on par with other broad principles that have shaped humanity: democracy, human rights, rule of law, etc. These principles have evolved into separate fields of study, driven by the enormous consequence they have on society. If the proclamations of many individuals in the open source and open education space are accurate, openness will have as great an impact as democracy and human rights (though, openness obviously has partial roots in both of those principles). For this reason, I suggest openness is worthy of discussion and preserving ideologically.

WRT to pragmatism – we absolutely need to see the practical instantiation of ideologies. The pragmatics of democracy are reflected in the practical preservation of basic individual rights. However, and this reveals my current interest in Jacques Ellul, the desire to reduce everything to techniques and pragmatics dampens creative intellectual exploration. What surprises me most is that the dominance of pragmatism as a world view has penetrated even the (what should be) most ideologically-oriented institutions – academia, church. I’m used to arguing the need for ideology over pragmatics with family members who are not in academic settings. I’m still a bit taken back when I see a similar mindset in educators. Yes, I know, the ivory tower should have impact on society, yes, we need to commercialize research, etc. But higher education should have a unique place in society. Contrary to what we see emerging today – Fast Company recently referenced HE as a “virgin forest” for globalization – HE is a balancing pillar in society. It is not business (though it is trying to become that more and more). It is not government. It is not a religious institution. And, it is not, or should not be, primarily concerned with pragmatics. As Edgar Morin has stated: “The major responsibility of education is to arm every single person for the vital combat for lucidity”.

Am I too idealistic? Perhaps, but I think it only appears that way because we squeeze so much of life through a pragmatic filter. We value doing and creation over thinking and reflection. As Ellul has stated, technique consumes and dominates what it touches, pushing all else to the side. Technique (and by extension, pragmatics) leads when it should follow.

Your post, David, raises many questions and possible areas of consideration. These would likely best be served in a conversation f2f, rather than a blog post, so I’m going to touch on the areas that are most relevant.

First, you state:

“Now, being uncompromisingly committed to principle is fine, as long as you don’t mind being ignored by certain groups. It can mean a life of “being translated” so that others can understand you, which consequently means a life of not having a direct impact, because your message is always being rewritten by a mediator so that it can be understood.”

I’m going to take a religious approach – one that I hope is acceptable as this is the view you took at the end of your post. My argument here has nothing to do with Stallman, but rather with the value of principles and ideologies above pragmatics. The teachings of Christ stand very well on their own. And they are uncompromising. Consider: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/5 , verses 20-29. Seriously? I can’t be angry with my brother? Looking at a woman lustfully is adultery? Jesus has got to be kidding here. The principles are too high. The pragmatics of life are far more readily attainable. Shall we then turn to a mediator? Perhaps – different religions certainly permit a role for mediators/priests. But the need for a mediator (if we hold to that view in our spiritual perspective) in no way diminishes the principles or ideological purity declared in Christ’s sermon. Some would also argue that a mediator is not necessarily at all and are willing to nail 95 theses to a door to make that point.

When applying this principle to the seat at the table (what Stallman doesn’t have, but Raymond does), what is most obvious to me is that we are talking about interlocking and self-enforcing systems. You only get to play if you bend to the rules. Which means that innovation is always constrained. What I’m questioning – and Jim Groom is getting at in his post – is that we need to question who decides who sits at the table. By sitting at the table, we are reinforcing the existing mindset/perspective.

A pragmatic view says “do what is needed to sit at the table”. An ideological view says “what does it mean to sit at the table? And is sitting at this table what is really best for me/OE/whatever?”.

I’ll leave this here and pick up on your other points later…