Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Tue 15th Feb 2011 09:01 UTC, submitted by sawboss
GNU, GPL, Open Source "Manu Sporny, founder and CEO of Digital Bazaar, has decided to use GitHub to store a project of a[n unusual] nature. Rather than a piece of software, he is listing his own genetic data as an open source project. He has released all his rights to the data and made around 1 million of his genetic markers public domain."
Thread beginning with comment 462536
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: "Open source"???
by olefiver on Tue 15th Feb 2011 11:15 UTC in reply to ""Open source"???"
olefiver
Member since:
2008-04-04

Whether it's illegal to patent DNA or not, shouldn't anything to say in regard of license or open source.
It's not patent law, it's copyright law, and seeing as it's a persons own DNA sequence I would say that he has copyright on that data and therefore can release it through a license or just drop it as public domain (as he has, if I understand geek.com correctly).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: "Open source"???
by bogomipz on Tue 15th Feb 2011 11:27 in reply to "RE: "Open source"???"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

No! It's his parents that hold the copyright on his DNA. They've just licensed it to him for the duration of one lifetime. He is allowed to distribute modified copies, though. That's usually done through a patch mechanism which is very good at merging two completely different DNA sequences. I think it uses a form of sexps [1], but I'm not sure.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexps

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[3]: "Open source"???
by demetrioussharpe on Tue 15th Feb 2011 15:35 in reply to "RE[2]: "Open source"???"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

No! It's his parents that hold the copyright on his DNA. They've just licensed it to him for the duration of one lifetime. He is allowed to distribute modified copies, though. That's usually done through a patch mechanism which is very good at merging two completely different DNA sequences. I think it uses a form of sexps [1], but I'm not sure.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexps


LOL I guess you beat me to it! ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: "Open source"???
by olefiver on Tue 15th Feb 2011 18:39 in reply to "RE[2]: "Open source"???"
olefiver Member since:
2008-04-04

Thanks for clearing that up.

Wouldn't that mean that the guy is setting himself up for a lawsuit from his parents on violation of copyright?
Assuming that the released DNA isn't modified, that is.

Edited 2011-02-15 18:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: "Open source"???
by demetrioussharpe on Tue 15th Feb 2011 15:34 in reply to "RE: "Open source"???"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Whether it's illegal to patent DNA or not, shouldn't anything to say in regard of license or open source.
It's not patent law, it's copyright law, and seeing as it's a persons own DNA sequence I would say that he has copyright on that data and therefore can release it through a license or just drop it as public domain (as he has, if I understand geek.com correctly).


If that's the case, then if he has living parents, wouldn't they actually be the copyright holders? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: "Open source"???
by panzi on Tue 15th Feb 2011 21:33 in reply to "RE: "Open source"???"
panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

Funny thing: In Germany and Austria there is no "copyright" as such, but "Urheberrecht" (=authors right). Who would be the author of ones DNA? Your parents (50% each parent, aside from minor mutations)? But their DNA would then be fully copyrighted by their parents (apply recursively). This is a license mess!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: "Open source"???
by reez on Tue 15th Feb 2011 23:44 in reply to "RE[2]: "Open source"???"
reez Member since:
2006-06-28

Funny thing: In Germany and Austria there is no "copyright" as such, but "Urheberrecht" (=authors right). Who would be the author of ones DNA?

I might be wrong, but AFAIK that's not really true. It might me an other term, but it still regulates copies (among other things).

The question about authorship is still valid, bit I think it might be handled similar to pictures (if you are the person pictured you have a number of rights), because it also pictures you in a certain way.

Edited 2011-02-15 23:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2