I couldn’t resist this.

I’ve been threatening to write a blog post called Fifty Shades of Open, and I’ve also been dying to play with easel.ly to make an infographic. So here it is!

50shadesofopen title=

with particular thanks to Peter Reed for getting me to think further about the dimensions of openness stuff, which I started to explore in my post on the sunlight effect.

This is very much thoughts in beta. My main point here is that for me, the pure open, the “open as in heart”, is only one meaning of open. A pure one, but not the only one. In the open education space we are reaching the point that the open source movement reached with the “gratis vs libre” debate. That created the acceptance of a new umbrella name of Free and Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS). The purists cannot control the use of the word open. Some activities promoting themselves as open might actually be a very very very dark shade of grey. Yes, that is “openwashing”. But who polices the use of language around open? It’s not so simply dismissed as a black and white issue, for example, I still think that free is more important than editable. But what does “free” mean in this era of devices, cheap apps and user data business models?

I think ultimately, openness comes in fifty shades of grey.

… and since you ask, yes I have read all three books and I loved them!