Page:The battle for open.pdf/39

 a good choice of name. It has certainly aged better than some of the alternatives that were suggested at its inception, including ‘the University of the Air’.

The examples of openness mentioned can be seen as the latest interpretations of that approach as applied to education. But these forms of openness did not arise in a vacuum, and their roots have more than just a historical interest for the current debates. In this chapter I will explore some of the history of openness in education in order to establish a basis for the subsequent chapters, which examine a particular aspect in detail.

Avoiding a Definition

Before examining the history, however, it is worth considering what we mean by ‘openness’. It is a term that hides a multitude of interpretations and motives, and this is both its blessing and curse. It is broad enough to be adopted widely, but also loose enough that anyone can claim it, so it becomes meaningless. One solution to this is to adopt a very tight definition. For instance, we might argue that something is only open if it conforms to David Wiley’s 4 Rs of Reuse (2007a):


 * Reuse – ­the right to reuse the content in its unaltered/­verbatim form (e.g. make a backup copy of the content)
 * Revise – ­the right to adapt, adjust, modify or alter the content itself (e.g. translate the content into another language)
 * Remix – ­the right to combine the original or revised content with other content to create something new (e.g. incorporate the content into a mashup)
 * Redistribute – t­he right to share copies of the original content, your revisions or your remixes with others (e.g. give a copy of the content to a friend)