Artur-jan, salam! Thanks for your questions. I have struggled with questions similar to the one you have put to Birgitt and I want to share my perspective as a certified Genuine Contact Trainer since 2005.
What I understand - and perhaps Birgitt and others can fill in or clarify here- is that part of the impetus to create the Genuine Contact Program (GCP) with a trademarked approach to working with OST was that Birgitt had for years wanted for the OST community to come to a shared understanding of what is good OST facilitation (including preparation and follow up). And when she saw that there wasn't the willingness to do so, she went ahead and created GCP. For me everything belongs to Spirit. I don't believe in the idea of intellectual property, for it's an outdated way of dealing with co-human creation. That said, I try to honor where things come from and try to honor copyrights in many situations. We live, after all, in a 3-D world...and for now we do have intellectual property... When I went ahead to become a GC Trainer, I didn't give much thought to the fact that the program is trademarked, however early on after I became "certified" (a practice I don't quite care for) I recognized my own extreme discomfort with the fact that the approach to working with OST as well as many other elements of the program were copyrighted. I wished it were all online, free for the taking! Over time, however, I have shifted to a empathetic relationship to the choice to trademark the program components. Part of that empathy is just a deep appreciation for Birgitt's approach and the GC Program itself. I think it's worth taking the Working with OST workshop even if one were to disagree with *everything* one would hear in that workshop. Quite simply, the workshop has a powerful generative deeper architecture that helps OST facilitators make wise and compassionate choices about what to do as a facilitator at all stages of an OST meeting. Those questions, that deeper architecture, are not explicit or clearly accessible in any other OST learning materials that I know of. I don't know of any other workshop that makes that possible. I've seen many people claiming to know how to do OST, and what I've experienced hasn't looked, tasted, or felt like OST. Or if it did, it came from a very superficial understanding of the approach- in my opinion. On one level, I agree-- yes, all systems (organisms?) are self-organizing and people will naturally end up knowing/finding the OST practitioner right for them, or if need be will learn how to do OST better... I also understand the perspective offered by Birgitt of wanting to do OST well and support others in doing so. And so, I can see and understand more today the choice to trademark that GC way of working with OST-- which is not certifying people as OST practitioners (this point is made very explicitly to program participants. Are there alternatives to protecting the integrity of how to work with OST within the GC Program without trademarking it? Personally, I believe there are. And my wish is that some day that trademarks to the GC Program elements will be removed, replaced perhaps with something like copyleft or a Creative Commons license. That said, I am not sure that one can really learn OST just from reading the book or even by watching others do it once. Maybe some can learn that way. I recall trying and it didn't work (it didn't have the full energy/spirit of an OST meeting. And I've seen others try just from reading the book and it hasn't felt like OST. I also want to be clear that I don't think there is just one right way of doing OST. I continue to be inspired and appreciate the work of many others who don't work the GC way in working with OST... So, yes, Artur, I think you are asking fair questions. And as a Third Culture Kid/global nomad, I've always appreciated your forgoing the North American conflict-avoiding niceties in posing your questions. It makes for a livelier conversation. my two kopecks/rials/drams/laris/centavos... um abraço do outro lado da Lagoa Grande, raffi Hi Birgitt: I think you are making confusion between (1) the methodology "Open Space Technology" and (2) some books that present it - or elaborate based on it. So let me clarify what I was saying. 1. The methodology "Open Space Technology" is not copyrighted - nor trademarked. 1.1. Indeed, it is the fact that OST is not trademarked that allows others to "combine" OST with other methods and trademark the all “package”. 2. To be a facilitator of OST there is no "certification" needed; anyone can begin using it and later learn more through reading books, attending OST events, following courses or attending OSonOS events. As Harrison putted it "Experience has shown that any individual with a good head and a good heart can achieve satisfactory results". This is IMHO a "foundation" of OST so important as the circle, the market place, the law, etc. 2.1. Using OST in certification processes violates, in my opinion, this OST "foundation". 3. What is copyrighted is Harrison Owen's book "OST - A User's Guide", published by Berrett-Koehler - as well as other books "related with OST" that he and others have published in traditional book publishers. Nevertheless, it must be noted that: 3.1. The first version of "OST - A User's Guide" is not copyrighted and can be downloaded free of charges from: http://openspaceworld.com/users_guide.htm. And it still is a good beginning. 3.2. All books published in traditional book publishers are copyrighted; 3.3. When the first edition of the User's Guide was published by Berrett-Koehler, the concept of copy left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft), applied to software or books, as well as the concept of Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons) did not yet exist. Also, self-publishing sites (like, for instance, http://www.lulu.com/, among many others) did not exist yet. 3.4. "OST" is not licensed as a "Creative Commons" license; hence if OST was copyrighted/trademarked, using it as part of other methods, would be not only unethical, but also illegal (if the OST legislation is similar to others that I know better). If you still have doubts about what I think, please ask. If you are clarified about that, then we can conclude that there is indeed a difference of opinions. But differences of opinions are always happening in organizations and communities - and more so when the space is open - and are not necessarily a bad thing… Regards Artur -------------- From: Birgitt Williams <birgitt at dalarinternational.com> To: 'Artur Silva' <arturfsilva at yahoo.com>; 'World wide Open Space Technology email list' <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:26 PM Subject: RE: [OSList] OST - Open Systems Thinking Dear Artur, I have some confusion about what you are saying about copyrighting. All books pertaining to OST including the User’s Guide, which defines OST, are copyrighted. All of Harrison’s teaching powerpoints about OST are copyrighted. I personally think this copyrighting was essential. Copyrighting can be perceived as a responsible way of the author to protect the materials, names, processes etc for the use of anyone who cares to use this material…freely. If Harrison had not copyrighted these materials, it could have been problematic in that someone else might have come along and copyrighted them….and then restricted their use…and it would definitely have had a negative impact on this entire OST community. So, personally, I thank HO for copyrighting. Warmly, Birgitt Williams www.dalarinternational.com
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
