Wait, Wait... Don't Tell Me... Open Content is....?

At first glance, the unit on Open Content in Wiley's course looks like it's the shortest, in terms of the list of readings and assignments. I looked at it and thought "Okay, cool, a shorter unit!" Um, not so. Total Wiley/ Jedi mind trick: While reading the shortest of the short readings, I found myself more confused than I was in the first unit, back when I was working on sorting out all these different topics and ideas and how they apply to and mean something to my work.
Before even starting this unit,  I understood the concept of "open" in the context of education, and I also thought, since I blogged on it already, that I understood Open Source and what that means. I'm admittedly less comfortable with the Licenses;  maybe that's why the Open Content unit gets me all turned around, because understanding "open content" requires a pretty solid understanding of copyright, licensing, and what it means to make something free and useable to the public.
To begin the unit on "open content," Wiley offers us his definition. The first part of it asks us to revisit the definition(s) of "open" and "openness." This is a helpful refresher not just in substance but also in spirit - he's reminding us of the continuous nature of the concept. He uses the example of an open door to explain - A door can be open all the way, or part of the way, or even just a wee bit, and it's still not closed, right? So, even when it's not wide open, it's still open.
At this point, I'm on board. I get that. I read a little further into Wiley's definition: "Open content, then, is content that is licensed in a manner that provides users with the right to make more kinds of uses than those normally permitted under the law - at no cost to the user" (Wiley, 2011).
Aaaaand I'm lost again.
I keep reading: "Put simply, the fewer copyright restrictions are placed on the user of a piece of content, the more open the content is"  (Wiley, 2011).
Okay, so content being considered "open" relates to the use of said content.  So the more publicly accessible the content, the more open? That seems obvious. So why was I so confused? Because I kept reading. That's why.
Again, the manner of usage of content is what makes it really open, less open, or not open - any variety of open is still open. To provide a framework for content use, Wiley provides the 4 Rs.

• Reduce
• Reuse
• Recycle
• that's only 3 Rs.... oops. Wrong list.

Sorry. Seriously, though, Wiley's Rs are pretty similar:

1. Reuse
2. Revise
3. Remix
4. Redistribute

This framework provides a much needed context. Whenever I'm trying to understand something super conceptual, I love some scenery to go with,  some type of setting I can apply the concept in. So I like the 4 Rs, because by using them, I can come away feeling a wee bit more clarity about something really difficult to pin down: Open Content is less about the content itself and more about the manner and style of its use. If it's content that's public, accessible, and free (cost)- then it's open. Simply put, the activity that takes place around any given bit of content is really what decides the degree to which it's open.