Never mind specific license though, where's the source? As long as the source is only available within a proprietary software platform requiring one or more risky closed-source plugins, it's not very 'open'.
Do peruse the OSI definitions of Open Source, or the GPL list of Essential Freedoms. It's NOT about anti-company licensing (the GPL specifically covers the freedom to sell), although companies that thrive on reducing customer's rights will, obviously, not be able to implement the GPL.
For DNA, it's unclear whether Copyright (lesser of two absurdities) is a suitable protection. To some extent it is, as sequence is generally considered essential data for working with or selling DNA; if someone can only derive from your work without respecting the commons by never telling their customers the sequence, that'll put them at a disadvantage.
Patents are generally considered net-evil in Open Source circles, and the science seems to support this conclusion. However, someone with an intense desire to lock something out of the intellectual commons for a few decades could at minimum consider the Twitter Innovator's Agreement, which is designed to prevent them from abusing the patent for anything but defense against other patent holders.
Anyways, I'll believe it's a "community project" when it adopts an OSI approved license. Until then it's just Web2.0 applied to DNA: you put yourself in and get a product out but you may or may not really own it.
drllau <drlawrencelau@gmail.com> wrote:
is the problem with the structure (of the for-profit spin-out) or the fact that intangible property (knowhow, community tradedress, copyleft) is being enclosed due to unclear boundaries (tragedy of commons). The former can be solved by preference for CIC (community interest corp) or low-profit limited liability companies. The second is more a equitable issue with deciding what is fair/right. Positions on the latter can be done by deliberately placing code in friendly jurisdictions (eg NZ now has no software patents - see http://www.burgess.co.nz/law/universal-support-for-exclusion-of-software-patents/ ) but any genetic entity still needs to be physically deposited. The long term impact is that the market generally follows the low-cost route, whether open-source or crowd-investing. Yes, sometimes items need to be capitalised, eg short-term debt to fund a project to hit a particular milestone, but once the project pays for itself, it can then be released back into public domains (see blender 3D http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/)
on the other hand material transfer agreements seem to be an acceptable norm which clarifies which claims/rights are being retained.
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 11:53:38 AM UTC+12, Bryan Bishop wrote:On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Antony Evans <anton...@gmail.com> wrote:
I was willing to indulge you but if you look there, you will see that you wrote the following:"Exactly which license we are still debating in the team. For sure open source for full use in DIY Bio, where the team is not sure is regarding commercial applications. Eg we don't think someone should setup a business selling the glowing plant seeds. What do you think?"That's completely contrary to open source... I don't think you understand open source. :-(- Bryanhttp://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment