Mark Surman shares in his blog the intricacies surrounding the definition of open education resource (OER), particularly its distinctness from open access resources. He reiterates remixability as the most distinct feature of OER.
… the fundamental test of an open educational resource is whether it is under a license and uses a format that allows remixing. … The real promise of open education rests on this remixability. It’s what creates space for increased innovation and creativity in learning.
He emphasizes the importance of making this distinction, which is also the underlying difference between the Budapest and the Cape Town Declaration.
The Budapest Declaration defined the minimum spec for an open access resource, which benefited the worlds of education and research tremendously. Cape Town has now set out a spec for open education resources. It may have a similar effect over time, but only if we are clear that open educational resources represent a separate and complimentary tactic to open access. They are about the potential of remixable education.
Ahrash Bissell contributes to the ongoing debate expressing the significance of maintaining the difference between “open educational resources” and “open access resources”, whereby the first refers to “works that explicitly permit derivatives,” while the second comprises “works with no derivative term or equivalent restrictions on derivatives.”
