Project Management World Today Viewpoints
July/August 2005

Editorial | Viewpoints | Papers | Case Studies | Community | Scene | Publications

Copyright vs. Copyleft - A Layman’s Explanation
by Paul Giammalvo

Once again the debate over Copyright Agreement and Policies of several of the leading Not For Profit organizations representing project managers has spawned a spirited discussion, leading to several requests to explain the difference, in layman’s terms, between Copyright and what has become known as “Copyleft” or “Open Source” intellectual property (IP) licenses. (Based on GNU License Agreement)

Let me preface this article by stating that I am not a lawyer, nor am I offering legal advice, nor am I holding myself out to be an expert in this subject. I am a reasonably well read professional PM practitioner, trying (like you) to make informed and rational decisions in how I manage my knowledge contributions. In that context, I would like to share with you what I have learned over the past year or so regarding Intellectual Property Rights, Copyright, Copyleft, Derivative Works and Public Domain, with the objective to try to help you make sense of it as a typical Project Management practitioner.

To start with, the common law basis for Intellectual Property is not a whole lot different than owning your house, car or any other tangible asset. You have a "bundle of rights" which include the right to sell, rent, donate or give away, modify, improve, change or otherwise do anything the law allows that comes with ownership of property. For example, suppose you own a house. When you rent that house out to someone, in exchange for their monthly rent, you have given up some of the rights that come with owning the property, including the right to use it for your own purposes, and to access it without the permission of the occupants. So even though you still own the house, you can give up some or all of your rights in exchange for something of value, usually money. If you were to sell the house, or donate it to a charity, then you would have given up ALL your rights to use that house.

Intellectual property is much the same. First, it must be "tangible" in the sense that you cannot copyright ideas or dreams or visions. According to 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) Copyrights do not protect “ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries: they only protect physical representations.”

So intellectual property is most often “physically represented” in the form of words and/or images and/or sounds. (more or less without regard to the medium on which they are stored- be it film, tape, vinyl discs, print etc etc)

Copyright and Copyleft are, as the names imply, two heads of the same coin- exact opposite concepts that are mutually exclusive. With the absolute application of Copyright, you, as the original owner or creator, can either DONATE, SELL, LEASE (rent) or MODIFY your knowledge (in the form of words and/or pictures and/or sounds) to others and in exchange for compensation or other consideration, give up all or some of your rights. On the flip side, we have Copyleft, where you agree to put your knowledge (again usually in the form of words/pictures/sounds) into the public domain for EVERYONE and ANYONE to use, (including your competition!!) with no compensation to you. However, with Copyleft, you still have the right to unlimited use of your words/pictures/sounds, including the right to use them to generate revenue for you. You also retain the right to modify, improve or otherwise change your words/pictures/sounds. An interesting aspect of Copyleft is not only do you have these rights, but so does everyone else in the public domain, with two important conditions: 1) Any DERIVATIVE work that uses your words/pictures/sounds, whether by you or anyone else, MUST also remain in the public domain, (nobody can take your ideas, modify them slightly, then copyright them) and; 2) Anyone who uses your work as part of or the basis of their work MUST give you proper and appropriate credit. (even your competitors, if they use your words/pictures/sounds) To those proponents who advocate Copyleft or Open Source, this leads to the creation of even more knowledge as one idea spawns many others. While perhaps appearing counterintuitive, the proliferation of Linux and the decision by MIT to put their courseware on line for nothing, http://web.mit.edu/ocw/ certainly is making a case in favor of Open Source/Copyleft over Copyright as the best way to create new knowledge.

OK, having explained the basic concepts, let’s look at a hypothetical situation…..

Supposing a group of people decide they want to create an International Development Body of Knowledge or Glossary, OK? IF the group subscribes to COPYRIGHT, they can protect what they have created, then donate it, sell it, lease it, modify it or do anything else that they agree to within the law. Now supposing they all agree to DONATE their work to a not for profit organization (NFPO). That NFPO is now free to donate, lease rent, modify or sell it to anyone else, including charging the original creators if they want to use the words/pictures/sound they created, but signed over through the copyright agreement. IF the creators have signed over their derivative rights along with everything else, then unless the NFPO is willing to give them permission to do so, the creator does not even have the right to improve upon their own words/pictures/sounds, as they no longer belong to the originator. Even worse, IF the originator were to create a derivative work that proved to be a commercial success, the NFPO would have the legal right to claim all or part of the revenues from that derivative work. Why? Because in signing the copyright agreement, the originator has given up these rights to the NFPO.

Now let's assume the same group opt for COPYLEFT in creating their IDBoK or Glossary. Once their knowledge (in the form of words/pictures/sounds) is in the public domain under GNU License, then EVERYONE and ANYONE is free to use it, whether for commercial or non-commercial uses. This includes the NFPO. However, consistent with the GNU License, ANYONE who uses the "knowledge" created by the group must: 1) Keep any derivative work in the Public Domain, and; 2) Acknowledge the creating group as the authors of the words/pictures/sounds. In the meantime, the original creating group, along with the NFPO and anyone else, are able to use the words/pictures/sounds for any commercial or non-commercial application OR modify it. IF the modifications are "SUBSTANTIAL" then the modifier MAY have the right to copyright their improvements, but otherwise, the work must remain in the public domain.

Now as these two scenarios represent extreme absolutes, (For illustrative purposes, let’s refer to these as the Two Evils) most reasonable and rational people would strive for some solution that is in between. Which is why, when this author was involved in the negotiations between GWU and PMI over publishing Case Studies developed by the GWU MS in Project Management program, we agreed that the while the ownership of the work of the students (our words/pictures- no sounds) remained with us as creators (especially in terms of the derivative work), we were willing to grant to PMI rather broad and unrestricted use of the materials save for those two issues. (See attached copy of the agreement as agreed to between PMI and GWU)

What is the moral of this story? As we live in the “knowledge age” one has to question the rationality of donating one’s knowledge to any Not-For-Profit organization, only to have them sell it back to the creators. At the same time, especially for academics, consultants and trainers, why should we be willing to share our intellectual property with our competitors either. So given the choice between Two Evils, as Copyleft gives contributors the most flexibility, then this is our "best" choice. But if there was another way- a middle road, (i.e the solution negotiated between GWU and PMI1), that would remain the choice of preference.

I surely hope this VERY simplistic layman's explanation will help you understand the quandary and complexities we are facing, and encourage the readers of this e-zine to lobby the BOD’s of your respective Not-For-Profit organizations to reconsider the current onerous and one sided copyright agreement.

As “knowledge” is the currency of the future, to deny authors ALL ownership of their IP, especially as it relates to derivative work, is drive away the best and brightest minds. In the end, this short-sighted policy can only hurt the professionalization of our chosen occupation, and diminish the quality of the knowledge being advocated for and by the relevant professional organizations.

Hope this very brief and very simplistic explanation has helped you understand the basics of Copyright vs Copyleft, and in making more informed decisions when asked to sign agreements that naively require you to sign away your IP rights for no compensation.

For those interested in doing more research on their own here are several links to help you get started:

Stanford University Cyberlaw website: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/
MIT's Technology Review magazine: http://www.techreview.com/
GNU License Agreement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
FAQ's on Derivative Works: http://chillingeffects.org/derivative/faq.cgi#QID379
FAQ’s on Copyright: http://chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi
Definition of Public Domain: http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/index.php?p=3289

Reference:

1. Solution negotiated between GWU and PMI (pdf)

Paul Giammalvo photo Paul D. Giammalvo, CDT, PMP, CCE, MScPM, is Director of the ASEAN Project Manager’s Center of Excellence, Inc. (APMX) For over 12 years, he has been provided Project Management training and consulting throughout SE Asia. He is active in the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International, (AACE); Construction Specifications Institute (CSI); Construction Management Association of America, (CMAA) and serves on the Global Project Management Forum Steering Committee. Email Paul G. Giammalvo or visit Paul's Website

Top of Page

Express your views on any PM World Today matter with a Letter to the Editor.

Letters to the Editor are readers comments and observations on the Editorial, Viewpoint Columns, articles, papers or other notices of PM happenings appearing in the monthly issues of the Project Management World Today.

Send a Letter to the Editor!
Read the Letters to the Editor

Editorial Policy: The PMFORUM® has no connection to any national or international project management organization nor does it reflect the policy of any project management professional or commercial organization. The PMFORUM® maintains an objective and impartial view of project management affairs. In the interests of advancing professional project management the PMFORUM® will publish contending and objective views on issues that reflect collegial differences and perspectives