Foundations better off with open copyright alternatives

There are many foundations that support the creation and distribution of a wide range of scientific works, such as articles, research reports, books, educational material etc. More often than not, these foundations strive towards maximising the distribution of these works to promote a free flow of knowledge and thereby contributing to the public good.

A recent report from Harvard University has evaluated how these foundations work with different forms of copyright licences to disseminate their knowledge. Most of the foundations that support the creation of works, copyright their material. ‘Traditional’ copyright requires publishers to extend a licence to distribute and spread their work to every user. However, as these foundations often strive towards an optimal spread of their knowledge, an increasing number of foundations is using alternative forms of copyright, such as the General Public Licence (GPL) and Creative Commons (CC). Some influential software is published and spread with a GPL licence, such as the Firefox browser and the Linux operating system. According to Creative Commons, more than 250 million works all over the world are published with a CC licence.

The study found that open licences benefit these foundations on different levels. On a fundamental level, these licences correspond well with the mission of many of these foundations to create and spread their knowledge freely. Furthermore, these licences are found to make life easier, said foundations participating in the study. They lead to the fastest dissemination of knowledge that in turn can be used to create more new works. Also, the fast and free spread of knowledge can “reinvention of the wheel” by other researchers and authors.

These alternatives to copyright should not be seen as a replacement of what we call ‘traditional’ copyright. Both have their merits in different situations. When rights holders want to retain control over their work and rely on them for their livelihood, traditional copyright works best. However, the same can be said of open licences when a rights holder strives towards an open and free flow their knowledge or content.

The emergence of open licences should be treated as a welcome addition to the possibilities that rights holders have in determining their course in publication. They form a sign of innovation and a valuable component in the future of copyright.