I decided I'd make my content available with a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution, Non-commercial, Share Alike) license, so that people could freely use and adapt my stuff, but would need to cite me as its source, make their content that was based on my work available for free, and slap a similar license on it. This is important, I think, to prevent the materials that educators make and contribute freely to the community STAY FREE. Without these stipulations (NC and SA), it would be possible for a commercial textbook company, for example, to grab the content I've created and add it to their "walled garden" of content which is technically free, but requires an expensive subscription to GET TO. This is a subversion of the Open idea which a lot of commercial publishers have tried, to reduce their cost of content and make themselves seem hip and up to date. The community calls it Openwashing.

Oer15: Window Boxes, Battles, and Bandwagons

Open Education, yes, but also Open Access, Open Science, Open Data, Open Source, Open Government, etc.

Free and Open

Our primary priority should neither be minimizing cost nor maximizing pedagogical flexibility. Our primary priority should be increasing student learning, and our efforts to reduce costs and increase pedagogical flexibility must always be subservient to that end. When we fail to put student learning first, we can become zealots who confuse the means with the ends.

Cengage launched its own OER resource, OpenNow, in 2017

CC BY NC license

The involvement of for-profit companies like Lumen in the production and distribution of open educational resources remains controversial, since they oftentimes wind up charging students for content that is supposed to be free. Advocates for OER also sometimes worry about whether companies will capture and control student data.

For OER to truly scale

OER company Top Hat

OER repackaging that Cengage is engaging

Openwashing