Week 7: Licensing Open Educational Resources

QUESTIONS: Can you think of license options that CC is currently missing that would benefit the open education movement? As the CC and GFDL licenses are incompatible, how can OCW content be legally remixed with Wikipedia content? Some people claim that the Creative Commons ShareAlike clause provides most of the protections people want to secure from the Creative Commons NonCommercial clause. What do you think these people mean, are they right, and why? Is copyleft good for the open education movement? Why or why not?

All right, before I start with the answers, some comments: As I was returning from Brazil this weekend where I attended the IVLA (International Visual Literacy Association) conference I saw inside the airplane (TAM) that they had this Brazilian Popular Culture Almanac (printed magazine). It is a very interesting publication and I noticed that it is under the Creative Commons license. The license restricts commercial reproduction of content and asks for contact in case someone wishes to do so. Right then I noticed that it really is a "some rights reserved" copyright.
Also, as I watched the video that mentions Brazilian musician (and politician) Gilberto Gil I was not surprised about his innitiative reported in the video ("take a bit and make it new"). Gilberto Gil is tunned with the Internet era and has many works that reflect on the changes in culture trigged by the new information society. Talking about culture, he is the current Minister of Culture in Brazil. He is in his second term (along with the president who got reelected) and could manage with the president to maintain some of his musical agenda. Gilberto Gil was also the mayor of Salvador( capital of the state of Bahia) some years ago. So, he is very much connected to the world of culture and its relation with politics.

It seems to me that CC is missing a lot in relation to free sharing of instructional resources. It seems to work well with cultural products, though. I got the impression from one of the videos that it can be customized, am I wrong?
CC is still very restrictive, still retains copyright, although it allows certain uses of the work. This is what keeps it from being fully in sync with the open education movement. It uses the term "free" in a monetary sense. It would benefit Open Education if it waived the restrictions on commercial uses and also on credits.
Wikipedia content is commited with free (in the sense of personal liberty) content version of education. The remix mentioned in the question would only happen under a share-alike provision of CC.
Well, those who claim that "the Creative Commons ShareAlike clause provides most of the protections people want to secure from the Creative Commons NonCommercial clause" might be wrong since CC allows for collaboration, use, sharing etc but at a certain extent. It is clear in keeping the non-commercial clause.
As for copyleft, which came from free documentation of software, it is good for the Open Education movement. It meets the free content definition and has the share-alike provision. Copyleft understands free in the sense of liberty and not in monetary grounds.