Monk Quest 4

The dilemma over license compatibility in the OER world (and trying to mix content) gives me a headache and I can tell from reading other postings that it gives headaches to others as well. This dilemma affects the remixing and licensing of the learning objects. It seems to me (and I wouldn’t consider myself to be the most informed person around on this subject) that Web 2.0 tools have facilitated content mashups perhaps more than in other times. It’s simply easier and the tools are more widely available for individuals to create them. From materials I have read, the OER world recognizes the potential for mashing content (legally) and then being able to license the work in some way that pleases the creator (although this is debatable because of predefined restrictions such as the share-alike license).
David has a point when he said

You should next notice in the CC compatibility graphic that there is only one license that is compatible for cross-license remixing with all Creative Commons licenses (and with the GFDL, although the graphic doesn’t show it): the Public Domain license. Technically, this isn’t a license - it is a dedication of copyrights to the public domain. It is a formal rejection of all restrictions, and a complete freeing and opening of content. It is the ultimate expression of the ideals of openness and freedom. So why do we settle for only four freedoms? Why isn’t our goal to have all OERs eventually exist in the public domain? If we really care about ease of reuse, if we really respect creators of derivative works, and if we really want to see the open education movement succeed, we should have the public domain as our final goal.

In Stephen Downes’ comment to this, he reported an analogy that depicts the dilemma.

If you support democracy, what do you do when someone uses democracy to campaign for something that is not a democracy? The question of using one’s freedom of speech to argue for intolerance has been an issue from the first days of freedom of speech.
Your response is to say, essentially, that democracy means allowing anyone to say anything, to campaign for anything, even if it involves the election of a government that destroys the democracy.

Those that live in the “public domain” world where we would like to make content freely open and shareable and relicenseable (no matter what – even if works are sold for profit, etc.), it is difficult to convince the rest of the “all rights reserved” world that this should be the goal. It seems that the CC licenses provide the baby steps for individuals to begin participating in the “some rights reserved” world while still feeling like their works are protected. Because of the radical nature of opening up content (contrary to the messages sent by the rest of the world) these baby steps are the beginning.

While we proselytize to this “all rights reserved” world, it would do us well to level the playing field in a way that we can more openly mix and remix materials with varying license types. I think everyone agrees with this point. I wish I had a brilliant solution of how this is to be done, but the world of Web 2.0 tools will not stop while we try to figure it out.