3.1.3. Free and Open Knowledge and Licensing

Any technical development, including software code, that is funded by public money should be made available under licenses equivalent to Free and Open Software licenses. (Note: DiEM25 does not have any a priori preference for any category or set of licenses. We are aware that there is a whole ecosystem of software and creative commons licenses, and, depending on context and the area, the choice of the appropriate license will have to be made. We do not believe in a "one size fits all" approach in this context.)

This has several benefits: it provides for independence from non-EU based suppliers, it increases the security and stability of the software and it breaks the de facto monopoly of many technical platform providers.

While exceptions can be possible under strict circumstances, any such exceptions must be accompanied by a practical mechanism to ensure returns to the public from the proceeds of any monopoly granted. For example, the EU might require that any spin-off created to monetise the result of publicly funded research has to grant, on incorporation, 20% of its shares as non-voting shares to the authorities that funded the research.

In addition, DiEM25 wants to put barriers around the public domain and prevent the enclosure of the commons of knowledge, by establishing certain areas of knowledge outside the reach of IP rights. This will include a ban on the concept of IP rights on anything invented or created by machines, and the introduction of a principle that any information "found in nature" will be and remain at all times in the public domain. Biological information carriers such as DNA or RNA must be classified as "Open Content" languages, and not subject to any IP right.