The difference between ITIL and COBIT for consultants: four words
As a consultant, COBIT is my first-choice body of knowledge for my engagements. I go to it first* to assess, to frame, to define, to justify, to audit. I turn to ITIL second, when I need more detail, or when I need the authority of the holy of holies to justify what I suggest. There are two reasons for this:
1) COBIT is more complete and more systematic
2) four words
ITIL says
This is a Crown copyright value added product, reuse of which requires a Licence from the Cabinet Office. Applications to reuse, reproduce or republish material in this publication should be sent to...
No exceptions.
(BTW, "value added product" are weasel words to avoid efforts to make British Crown data publicly available. They aren't the words I mentioned - we're still coming to that).
In order to use any content of ITIL at all for any purpose, the British Government says you must crawl through the minefield of approvals and certifications.
You can try to use ITIL content under the terms of copyright "fair use" but I think it is risky and who wants to end up wrestling with Cabinet Office lawyers? or TSO or APMG lawyers, defending their clients' privately-owned profits?
On the other hand COBIT 5 says
No part of this publication may be used, copied, reproduced, modified, distributed, displayed, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written
authorisation of ISACA. Reproduction and use of all or portions of this publication are permitted solely for academic, internal and non‐commercial use and for consulting/advisory engagements and must include full attribution of the material’s source.
"for consulting/advisory engagements". Four words. The entire consulting industry is freed to quote COBIT to their clients as a source of content and authority. Smart.
For the same reason, I use e-CF not SFIA. Must be a British problem.
* Actually, when I want a framework structure - one of those five reasons I go to COBIT - I sometimes use my own Tipu Framework now, as it is a superset of both COBIT and ITIL.
Made in New Zealand 
Comments
Not the case for COBIT 4.1
Interesting observaticn, Rob.
My understanding is that for CobiT 4.1, a licence is needed for commercial use, just like ITIL (I can't have you blaming the UK Crown, especially as today is the Diamond Jubilee for our Queen Elizabeth!)
Here is the COBIT 4.1 copyright from the current edition:
Copyright © 2007 by the IT Governance Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used, copied,
reproduced, modified, distributed, displayed, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written authorisation of ITGI. Reproduction of selections
of this publication, for internal and non-commercial or academic use only, is permitted and must include full attribution of the
material’s source. No other right or permission is granted with respect to this work.
The copyright you included for COBIT 5, is from the Exposure Draft and of course that can be discussed with commercial clients, would be my view. Wait and see what the issued COBIT 5 says. Or, ask, ISACA's Director of Communications what is planned.
Ouch, good point. The
Ouch, good point. The copyright is as draft s the rest of the doc. Anyone from ISACA here?
COBIT5 offers good prompt to USMBOK
So - should I include a statement similar to that in the COBIT5 draft in the USMBOK... hhmm - I like the idea...
the Cabinet office has no
the Cabinet office has no problem with using ITIL free of charge. They do have a problem with reusing the exact material (quotes and graphics). But, as with all copyright law in Europe and North American, the fair use provisions apply.
ANY press or author, including COBIT, the CO will have a problem with you repackaging the material and selling it as your own (regardless of the manner). If you give credit to the CO, with proper trademark notices, footnotes and such, you can use its material generally as you like, just as academics quote each other with footnotes.
You definitely cannot sell an ITIL seminar without accreditation. But this enforcement as a clear purpose: there is a healthy market of ATOs who have worked hard to create accredited materials. That market needs protection from interlopers, who don't care about quality or accuracy and who destroy the prices, including the dailyrates for consultants like yourself
A little common sense and a sense of fairness will provide the proper guide.
nonsense
Oh nonsense.
We've already seen a PhD threatened for using the word "ITIL" in a thesis title. "A little common sense and a sense of fairness" doesn't seem to have played a prominent role there.
We've seen those trying to play fair and grow the industry driven mad by red tape
We've seen the major commercial players in this game undercut itSMF sales and use leverage to drive lower price alternatives off the market, so i don't see too much fairness at play there.
We've seen OGC act aggressively as a protector of a commercial product set rather than as an agent of a government that supports free use of public data.
Also copyright is not limited to direct quotes, because the "essence" of the work is copyright along with the content. e.g. the set of processes and their structure is copyright too. You can't talk about ITSM in the same way as ITIL without risking copyright violation.
Instead of relying on a little common sense and a sense of fairness, how about we have that in writing. Since you have chosen to post anonymously we have no idea in what capacity you make these claims, but even if Cabinet Office made them in writing I'd be cautious given past events.
I don't see why ITIL copyright can't be amended to read the same as COBIT's. Clearly ITIL has been successful with all the restraint of trade in place so they won't be motivated to change, but my prediction is that's about to change for them in the next few years if ISACA stick to their current course with COBIT...
As for accreditation, I'm glad to see you acknowledge that it is all about market protection: "That market needs protection from interlopers, who don't care about quality or accuracy and who destroy the prices ". What about vendors who do care about quality or accuracy and who lower the prices? That would be called competition and we can't have that. We can't let the consumers make their own choices on quality as they do in any open market.