Antonio Valle Salas's Mystery of the 1.1.1 Deleted - was ITIL once "public domain"?

Now here's a thing. A reader has uncovered a most interesting deletion from the ITIL V2 Service Support book.

Antonio in a recent comment pointed us to an interesting article on his blog, entitled "the mystery of the 1.1.1 deleted". So as to save you, gentle reader, from wrestling with translated Castillian Spanish, I hope Antonio will forgive me if I repeat the essense of it here.

In the original edition of ITIL V2's Service Support copyright 2000, which I have a copy of, there is the following text:

1.1.1 Public domain framework
From the beginning, ITIL has been publicly available. This means that any organisation can use the framework described by OGC in its numerous books. Because of this, the IT Infrastructure Library guidance has been used by such a disparate range of organisations, local and central government, energy, public utilities, retail, finance, and manufacturing. Very large organisations, very small organisations and everything in between have implemented ITIL processes.

In my more recent edition (Tenth impression 2005), it reads (you guessed it)

1.1.1 Deleted

Isn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term "public domain" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.

Clearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.
{"cc_re__cc_re__cc_by_sa_3_0": ["of Carnegie Mellon University.<br>\r\nISO\u00ae is a Registered Trade Mark of the International Organisation for Standardisation.<br>\r\nKCS was developed by the Consortium for Service Innovation\u2122, www.serviceinnovation.org\r\nThe KCS Academy, KCS and Adaptive Organization are service marks of the Consortium for Service Innovation\u2122.<br>\r\nDevOps isn't a trademark of anyone.\r\n\r\n<br>Except where indicated otherwise, all contents of this site are &copy; Copyright Two Hills Ltd www.twohills.co.nz. <br>\r\n\r\n<a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\"><img alt=\"Creative Commons License\" src=\"http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png\" /></a><br />Except where indicated otherwise, the <span dct=\"http://purl.org/dc/terms/\" href=\"http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text\" rel=\"type\">text on this page</span> by <span cc=\"http://creativecommons.org/ns#\" property=\"attributionName\">Two Hills Ltd</span> is licensed under a <a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Licens", "&copy; Copyright Two Hills Ltd www.twohills.co.nz. <br>\r\n\r\n<a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\"><img alt=\"Creative Commons License\" src=\"http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png\" /></a><br />Except where indicated otherwise, the <span dct=\"http://purl.org/dc/terms/\" href=\"http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text\" rel=\"type\">text on this page</span> by <span cc=\"http://creativecommons.org/ns#\" property=\"attributionName\">Two Hills Ltd</span> is licensed under a <a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License</a>. <br />Content must be attributed to \"\u00a9 Copyright Two Hills Ltd www.twohills.co.nz by Rob England, The IT Skeptic\" plus the URL of the source material.<br>\r\n\r\nRSS feeds may be used without permission.  Permission is granted for anyone to link to this site.<br>\r\n\r\nBy accessing or viewing this site, you are deemed to have agreed to the <a href=\"http://www.itskeptic.org/terms\">Terms and Conditions</a> and to our <a href=\"http://www.i"], "copyright__copyright__copyright": [" Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community.", " Deleted\n\nIsn't that interesting? As Antonio says, I think :-D, perhaps somebody doesn't like the term \"public domain\" being used now that OGC is on a mission to enforce the Crown copyright.\n\nClearly it never was public domain in the strict sense: it has always been copyrighted, but it obviously was once public domain in spirit. As Antonio also says, this is an indicator of the changing approach to ITIL as it becomes more aggressively a commercial industry and less a service to the IT community."]}