Los que me conocen saben que siempre he estado a favor de compartir lo que se y de que aquellos conceptos que podríamos llamar “ciencia base” sean de uso público. Es más, soy de la opinión de que el saber debería ser público, popular, comunitario… lo que no quiere decir que los autores tengan que morirse de hambre, porque si no estaría claro que nadie querría ser autor.
Pero en mi humilde opinión, los resultados de un trabajo realizado por el Gobierno con dinero de sus contribuyentes es totalmente lícito, digno, ético y loable que se revierta de nuevo en la sociedad. En nuestro país tenemos toneladas de ejemplos como pueden ser las guías del CTTI (de seguridad, de administración de entornos locales, de elección de herramientas, de gestión de proyectos…), la metodología Métrica 3 y el proyecto Aporta
Es por eso por lo que pienso que instar al Gobierno Británico para que libere el uso de ITIL® es una idea razonable, porque he contribuido en lo que he podido tanto para difundirla como para construirla y para asegurar un mínimo decente de calidad de forma desinteresada y mucho en mi tiempo libre.
Es por eso por lo que me adhiero a la causa del Free ITIL® Movement… “Free as in free speech, not as in free beer”
Por favor, señores del Gobierno de Su Majestad, liberen ITIL®
PS: Si apoyas esta idea, envíale tu opinión al Gobierno Británico
9 comentarios:
Antes de apoyar o rechazar tus argumentos, he de ver cual sería el beneficio de liberalizar ITIL. Creo que pasaríamos de un "ITIL by OGC" a varios, en función de quien pague por el soporte (ITSMF, alguna universidad, escuelas de negocios, EU vs USA...)
Emilio,
totalmente licito tu planteamiento. La idea no es un "Open ITIL" tocado, modificado y manipulado por quien le de la gana.
La idea es, más bien, un ITIL(r) bajo algo parecido al Creative Commons. La OGC sigue siendo propietaria y controlando los contenidos, evolucion y direccion, pero entregada a la comunidad de tal forma que su uso sea más libre que el actual.
Fijate que la solicitud es que ITIL(r) (como propiedad del gobierno britanico) caiga dentro de la "Open Government License
Antonio
Antonio,
ya sabes mi opinión. Yo creo en la Propiedad Intelectual, y creo que ITIL está donde está por el apoyo comercial, también creo que se pide que sea gratis por los mismos intereses, si no generara euros y dólares a nadie le interesaría.
Aún así, cuando se pide que sea gratis pero siga regulado, veo que la diferencia de lo que hay hoy es MUY pequeña, mucho muy pequeña. Así que considero que hay pocos beneficios y muchos riesgos. Por eso antes de pedir el free ITIL creo que habría que considerar los beneficios y como dice PRINCE2 "los contra-beneficios".
Lo mejor es que sigamos la discusión en un único sitio y así concentraremos todas las opiniones en lugar de tenerlas dispersas.
Continuamos aqui, ok?
Hello Antonio,
My Spanish is weak and I hope you don't mind my leaving a comment in English.
My translation of your article is that you believe ITIL should be made "free and open" because it was created with the taxpayer's money. While I admit that many things a government does may not need to be public and open, due to things like national security, I do believe that things like operational standards, such as what ITIL represents, are not a matter of confidentiality or security and, like you, agree that they should be made open and public.
My belief is that, over time, the ITIL "closed content model" will break. Already, there are organizations that openly publicize their content, like The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT).
The industry will never standardize if the standards are proprietary products that are owned and sold for profit. I believe this is because not everyone will be able to afford or choose to buy those standards. For those companies that can't or won't buy standards, they will look for alternate options, such as making up solutions from scratch (bad) or leveraging whatever public standards sources they can come across (good but limited).
It is only when standards bodies publish their content, openly, that the IT community will be able to use them, provide feedback on them, and ultimately improve them.
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks,
Theresa
Hello Antonio,
My Spanish is weak and I hope you don't mind my leaving a comment in English.
My translation of your article is that you believe ITIL should be made "free and open" because it was created with the taxpayer's money. While I admit that many things a government does may not need to be public and open, due to things like national security, I do believe that things like operational standards, such as what ITIL represents, are not a matter of confidentiality or security and, like you, agree that they should be made open and public.
My belief is that, over time, the ITIL "closed content model" will break. Already, there are organizations that openly publicize their content, like The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT).
The industry will never standardize if the standards are proprietary products that are owned and sold for profit. I believe this is because not everyone will be able to afford or choose to buy those standards. For those companies that can't or won't buy standards, they will look for alternate options, such as making up solutions from scratch (bad) or leveraging whatever public standards sources they can come across (good but limited).
It is only when standards bodies publish their content, openly, that the IT community will be able to use them, provide feedback on them, and ultimately improve them.
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks,
Theresa
Hello Terry,
first of all, I'm very glad that you took the time to translate and try to understand the translation of what I wrote.
Yes, it makes sense and is the core of the proposition: the 120 supporters that the movement has (til March, 3rd) think that we should have the permission to use ITIL contents and concepts freely.
Antonio
Hi Antonio,
I enjoy reading your blog because it helps me get stronger on my Spanish. That fact that it's IT oriented seems to make it easier for me to focus on the content and translate it.
Aside from confidentiality and security, the only other real argument a government may have for keeping such material proprietary is "revenue", which is the mark of a commercial company that exists to make money.
Interestingly, there's an argument that says: If the government can sell something to make money and doing so keeps my taxes down, is the government's success at a commercial venture a bad thing?
The government's argument would be: We make money by selling this proprietary content and services around it and, therefore, we use that revenue to keep your taxes down. (Not a bad argument to most people who have no real interest in IT standardization, right?)
I think this argument can only hold if the government venture to generate revenue is profitable. If not, this argument holds no merit.
Thanks,
Theresa
:-) Good reasoning!
I think that the business is good for both the government and the country, since it generates great revenues.
I'm sure that's the root cause why OGC isn't freeing ITIL (as they have done with other government products)
Antonio
Publicar un comentario