A draft legal license for BioBricks was created early in 2008, though as far as I know, it has not been “tested” by industry use of the intellectual property (anyone know?). Surprisingly, to me, the draft BioBrick license doesn’t contain any liability statements. The BioBrick license attempts to solidify the “open source”ness of biological components.
Compare the BioBrick license to the original open source software license from MIT, below.
MIT License for Software (circa 1992?)
Copyright (c) [year] [copyright holders] Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
The BioBricks license is simple and mandates only the sharing intent of the license. Whereas the original MIT and GNU Copyleft licenses contain a significant statement of liability-reduction (which, as far as I know, hasn’t actually been tested in court, though is generally accepted), the BioBricks discussions don’t seem to mention liability at all.
Draft of the BioBricks Legal Scheme (January 2008)
1. You are free to modify, improve, and use all BioBrick parts, in systems with other BioBricks parts or non-BioBrick genetic material.
2. If you release a product, commercially or otherwise, that contains BioBrick parts or was produced using BioBrick parts, then you must make freely available the information about all BioBrick parts used in the product, or in producing the product, both for preexisting BioBrick parts and any new or improved BioBrick parts. You do not need to release information about any non-BioBrick material used in the system.
3. By using BioBrick parts, you agree to not encumber the use of BioBrick parts, individually or in combination, by others.
The BioBrick license seems similar to the Creative Commons Share-Alike license. The legal scheme is based on the latest legal meetings organized by the BioBrick Foundation:
BioBrick Foundation / Samuelson Clinic Materials from March 2008 UCSF Workshop
Further BioBrick related legal documents are at Open Wet Ware: http://openwetware.org/wiki/The_BioBricks_Foundation:Legal
Open questions as of this writing:
- Has liability been addressed in Biobricks? (Especially considering the implications of biosafety that surrounds the field.) By liability, this means a license term which boils down to: “The author of this BioBrick is not responsible if anything bad happens when/if anyone creates/clones/uses/modifies it.”
- Has industry brought BioBrick technology to market which would “test” the BioBrick license?
- What is the roadmap for future license drafts/official versions?
I saw http://88proof.com/synthetic_biology/blog/archives/161 and wanted to mention a useful site: http://www.FreePatentsOnline.com
It provides free patent searching, free PDF downloading, allows annoting documents and sharing them, and free alerts for new documents.
If you have a spot, a link to let your users know abou the site would be great.
[…] No one has yet addressed liability (and instead only focus on biosecurity). The original open source software licenses were based heavily on liability debates and the licenses were required to contain the ””AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY” anti-liability clauses. The proposed licensing of Synthetic Biology does not mention liability. What happens to the liability issue, especially in a self-reproducing system, when building a larger device from smaller open source components? I compared these licenses previously in Share-Alike Genetic Engineering Intellectual Property Licenses. […]