<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.itskeptic.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>MOF</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/141</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft ups the ante on ITIL by releasing MOF into the public domain</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/microsoft-ups-ante-itil-releasing-mof-public-domai</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Just what sort of pacts has OGC signed with the money engines at TSO and APMG, or is HM still her own master?  When will ITIL be set free?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The real significance remains to be seen, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.technet.com/mof/archive/2008/09/12/mof-4-0-now-under-creative-commons-attribution-3-0-license-freely-adapt-mof-for-your-business-needs.aspx&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Microsoft&#039;s announcement&lt;/a&gt; that MOF 4.0 (Microsoft Operating Framework, a MS variant of ITIL) is now available under a &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Creative Commons&lt;/a&gt; licence to not only Share but also Remix(!) puts additional pressure on Castle ITIL&#039;s proprietary grip on the ITIL content.   The explicit mention of ITIL in the announcement suggests to me this pressure is not accidental.   MOF was already &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/DownLoads/details.aspx?familyid=457ED61D-27B8-49D1-BACA-B175E8F54C0C&amp;amp;displaylang=en&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;freely available for download&lt;/a&gt;, as also are COBIT and FITS, but this takes open content ITSM another step.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/microsoft-ups-ante-itil-releasing-mof-public-domai&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/microsoft-ups-ante-itil-releasing-mof-public-domai#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/1">ITIL</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/26">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/141">MOF</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/32">OGC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/167">open content</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:09:38 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1144 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Will ISO9000 absorb or displace ITIL?</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/595</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Many people, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.certification.info/2008/04/iso-20000-set-to-take-over-itil.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;ITSMView&lt;/a&gt;, are asking the question &quot;Is ISO 20000 set to take over ITIL?&quot;  Perhaps they should be looking over their shoulder at another ISO standard and the associated industry: ISO9000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/595&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/595#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/21">CobiT</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/27">ISO20000</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/140">ISO9000</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/1">ITIL</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/141">MOF</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 02:41:31 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">595 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
