<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV>Dear all, </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I've been subscribing to this list for a few months but haven't posted before. I'm prompted to do so now because some of the issues that have come up regarding the APL licence discussion have broader implications, and I'd like to get people's thoughts on those.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I'm aware, though, that -- as David Woolley pointed out early in the APL discussion -- "the only official purpose for this list is obtaining [OSI] approval, and that is best done by a request by the author of the licence terms". The issues I want to raise are off topic by this definition. On the other hand, it seems to me from the APL discussion that they are of interest to at least some people on the list, so I'll make so bold as to tell you what they are and I promise to take it well if you all decide to shoo me away. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Since 2002, I have been working (as have several others) to build a meaningful model of free and open source biotechnology that conforms as far as possible to the software model.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In 2003, I visited the US to discuss this project with biotech, software and IP experts.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> On that visit I met</SPAN> Brian Behlendorf, Bruce Perens and Larry Rosen; Bruce suggested that when an open source biotech licence was in the offing we biotech people should come back to the open source software community for comments, so that's what I'm doing now.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal">Some on this list may be familiar with the “Biological Open Source” (BiOS) initiative of CAMBIA, a non-profit molecular biology research association based in my home town of Canberra, Australia. This initiative involves licensing several patented biotechnologies under licences that CAMBIA describes as "open source".<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Clearly, these licences cannot be OSI-approved because the terms of the OSD (as I read them, anyway) aren't broad enough to deal with biotech/patent issues. CAMBIA doesn't claim they're OSI-certified. However, it is fair to say that CAMBIA is getting plenty of publicity and significant funding as the leading light of a new biological open source movement on the strength of having invoked the open source "brand". </DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal">So far there has been little detailed public scrutiny of these so-called "Biological Open Source" licences.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However, my own impression is that they fall short of the standards one might expect in a robust translation of open source principles from copyright/software into patents/biotechnology in various ways (that I'm happy to enumerate if people indicate interest).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Of course there may be excellent practical and/or legal reasons for this departure, but those of us in the biotech community who are interested in pursuing/facilitating an open source approach to biotech would like to be able to identify clearly which aspects of the BiOS translation deviate from the essential principles of open source licensing.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This will enable us to ask -- for this and future attempts at translating OS into biotech -- (1) whether such deviation is justified and (2) whether it is reasonable to call the result “open source”. </DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal">It's been pointed out in the APL discussion that there's no trademark on the term "open source". Anyone can call anything open source if they want. Still, from the perspective of a fledgling open source biotech community it doesn't make sense to erode the goodwill that has been built up around that label by the software community or to alienate people who could give us good advice. Moreover, we (some of us, anyway) want to borrow the licensing features that make open source functional, not just the rhetoric.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal">Note that the question is not whether the licences are compatible with associated open source copyright licences, as might be the issue for a grant of patent rights in software that is covered by an open source copyright licence.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Rather, it is whether the biotechnology patent grant is itself “open source”, as far as that is possible.<O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal">What do you all think? Does it matter how people use the term "open source" outside the software context? And would anyone be prepared to discuss these licences with me in more detail, either on or off the list? I've prepared some comments on the licences but won't clog up the list with them unless/until invited.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal">Cheers</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal">Janet</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><DIV> <SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>Dr Janet Hope</DIV><DIV>Centre for Governance of Knowledge and Development</DIV><DIV>Research School of Social Sciences</DIV><DIV>Australian National University</DIV><DIV>T: +61 2 6125 0172</DIV><DIV>F: +61 2 6125 1507</DIV><DIV><A href="mailto:janet.hope@anu.edu.au">janet.hope@anu.edu.au</A></DIV><DIV><A href="http://rsss.anu.edu.au/~janeth">http://rsss.anu.edu.au/~janeth</A></DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>