|
|
Post by billw on Apr 18, 2014 13:41:58 GMT -5
www.opensourceseedinitiative.org/I really like this. The "license" is short and clear. I have no idea if it would stand a legal test, but it's the right idea, IMO. "This Open Source Seed pledge is intended to ensure your freedom to use the seed contained herein in any way you choose, and to make sure those freedoms are enjoyed by all subsequent users. By opening this packet, you pledge that you will not restrict others’ use of these seeds and their derivatives by patents, licenses, or any other means. You pledge that if you transfer these seeds or their derivatives they will also be accompanied by this pledge." I'm going to use this for my 2015 offerings.
|
|
|
|
Post by philagardener on Apr 18, 2014 15:37:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Apr 19, 2014 1:19:43 GMT -5
I would not agree to that. I am unwilling to attach a piece of paper to my seeds forever after. I am unwilling to keep the records that would enable me to know the "derivatives" of a packet of seeds.
All of my seeds are open-source and public-domain. Most of the species I grow were domesticated by illiterate farmers living in illiterate cultures. They got along just fine without written contracts. I'm way to old and skeptical to believe that some words on the outside of a packet of seeds are going to keep the genetics out of the hands of The Corporation.
|
|
|
|
Post by billw on Apr 19, 2014 2:48:57 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical about how much protection it offers. As far as the paperwork goes, I think an on-line list of varieties under the open source license ought to be sufficient, but I guess we'll see how this shapes up as people start to use it.
At the very least, it may encourage the end user to think a little more about where their seeds come from.
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Apr 19, 2014 8:42:44 GMT -5
Then of course there's the problem that it's in conflict with itself.
The first part says you promise not to ever put these seeds under a license that restricts their use. The second part says you promise never to distribute these seeds, except under this license, which restricts others on how the seeds can be further distributed.
I think the idea has some potential, but I don't think this is quite the right wording yet.
I also agree with Joseph. I would never accept seeds with such a restriction. There's no reason to.
|
|
|
|
Post by petitvilaincanard on Apr 19, 2014 15:48:30 GMT -5
I think such a licence is the one that exists by default.
No pre existant genetic code can be 'patented'or something like that.
The fact that such a thing is legally possible proofs that laws that recognise such patents ,linences or such,are corrupt.
A licence that want to create an exception against corrupt laws is a way to recognise such laws.
Open source licence applys to the industrial world of computer code and industrial linences.And is very usefull.
I don't agree to apply the same industrial approach to life in general.
The principle,though,is clear and universal.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmobie on Apr 19, 2014 16:16:06 GMT -5
Plants reproduce on their own. How can it become illegal? If plants under a non-open license go to seed without my input, am I breaking a law? Violating a copyright? That kind of system is unenforcable. To me, that makes this open license redundant and unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by mjc on Apr 19, 2014 16:32:21 GMT -5
Plants reproduce on their own. How can it become illegal? If plants under a non-open license go to seed without my input, am I breaking a law? Violating a copyright? That kind of system is unenforcable. To me, that makes this open license redundant and unnecessary. No, you are not violating a copyright, but actually breaking a patent...and penalties for THAT are much stiffer. And as long as you are doing it for your own use (and that includes any crop from the plants in question), then no, there's not a lot they can do. But, try and sell them (crop or seeds) and see how 'unenforceable' it is. There have been farmers put out of business because the damn GMO crap spread to their crop, from neighboring fields. Here's just one of literally thousands of articles about this problem. www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htmAnd yes Monsanto does actively pursue it. |
|
|
|
Post by oldmobie on Apr 19, 2014 18:08:05 GMT -5
Plants reproduce on their own. How can it become illegal? If plants under a non-open license go to seed without my input, am I breaking a law? Violating a copyright? That kind of system is unenforcable. To me, that makes this open license redundant and unnecessary. No, you are not violating a copyright, but actually breaking a patent...and penalties for THAT are much stiffer. And as long as you are doing it for your own use (and that includes any crop from the plants in question), then no, there's not a lot they can do. But, try and sell them (crop or seeds) and see how 'unenforceable' it is. There have been farmers put out of business because the damn GMO crap spread to their crop, from neighboring fields. Here's just one of literally thousands of articles about this problem. www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htmAnd yes Monsanto does actively pursue it. Probably uncontrollable would have been a better choice. What you refer to is just what I mean. The farmer did nothing wrong; his plants and Monsanto's pollen did all the patent violation. It's wrong to punish the farmer for this! I think right solution isn't to make a new population under a Creative Commons type license. If the Monsanto pollen contaminates it, you're screwed again. The right solution, in my opinion, is for the courts to tell Monsanto "You realeased your plants into the world, Slappy, where they've continued to behave like plants. Suck it up. If you wanted control, you should have kept it at home." Then we wouldn't be trying to protect ourselves from prosecution because our plants behaved as designed. |
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on Apr 20, 2014 8:36:03 GMT -5
Unfortunately post Citizens United, that situation is unlikely (at least in the US). Agribusiness is deeply in bed with the USDA, and completely controls the policy conversation around these issues. It may be wrong to punish farmers for patent infringement due to biological reality, but laws and politics (at least here in the US) have never paid much attention to the biological reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by mjc on Apr 20, 2014 14:59:57 GMT -5
but laws and politics (at least here in the US) have never paid much attention to the biological reality. Really? Only 'biological'?  |
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on Apr 20, 2014 19:47:53 GMT -5
Really? Only 'biological'? Never said "only" |
|
|
|
Post by mjc on Apr 20, 2014 20:33:00 GMT -5
 And of course logic (bio or otherwise) is a very foreign concept, in that arena...(I think that one may just be universal. It seems being a politician and logical are mutually exclusive, like your brain would explode and take half the known universe with it...) |
|
|
|
Post by steev on Apr 20, 2014 22:44:48 GMT -5
Those who have power never willingly give it up.
Those who are paid to protect power never willingly work against it.
In the US, politicians have handed power to Monsanto, et al; they have handed money to politicians to consolidate that power. One hand washes the other.
Subvert the dominant paradigm!
|
|
|
|
Post by nathanp on Apr 21, 2014 5:34:50 GMT -5
Not 'never', just very rarely. There are those who are willing to do that. They just usually don't end up in politics.
|
|
