Re: [DIYbio] Seeking Open Source Licence for new biotech method

From my perspective and in my opinion, IANAL, the BioBricks(TM) agreement says in 5 words or less

 

"You can't sue."

 

Actually, it says that if you grant the license and someone reciprocally agrees to it and uses the part, you agree not to sue. So basically, the contributor under that license is "asked to represent and WARRANT" (sec 2.a, emphasis mine) that the part they contribute is free and clear of IP claims. In my book, this is terrible, because if, through failure of care on my part, contribute a part that has someone's IP in it, and another uses it, and the owner of the IP goes after the user of my part, you're giving that guy a pass to warrant against liability, so the IP holder then comes after YOU, protected only by a thinly veiled "to the best of your knowledge". If they get a court to decide that you did not do due diligence before contributing, guess what?

 

Then, at the end, says the contributor "...MAKES {no} WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION" (sec 7, emphasis document). But in fact, the document that the contributor is forced to sign when contributing (the BPA contributor agreement, version 1, January 2010) says "Contributor provides no ... warranty... except the promises of authority, ... non-assertion,... and intellectual property", saying they have the right to enter the agreement and assert that they hold title to the presumptive IP. 

 

So the contributor gives up all of their rights in exchage for the right... to be sued if they didn't know about prior IP on their IP. So if I use a restriction site covered by some other IP that's necessary for a plasmid I put out there, and someone uses the site, and then gets sued for using the site, have you warrented that you'll cover them that they "had the right to use that site because you warranted it free and clear"?

 

In short, yes, it's bull^h^h^h^hworse than garbage, through and through. Its claims are so flimsy and protection so weak that it will likely get blown away when it is first tested in court. And the harm will fall on the contributor. IMO, no one should contribute BioBricks(TM). The use of the license implies that it's a good thing, and most people click through the legalese. More people use it, the more it is enthroned, until the first time someone gets bit.

 

again, in my opinion, and i am not a lawyer (IANAL). Other people obviously think otherwise, so if you trust those other people, go ahead and use that license.

 

non serviam,

-matt

 

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:02:55 PM UTC-7, wgh...@gmail.com wrote: