Creative Commons-licensed test for African sleeping sickness


10 Responses to “Creative Commons-licensed test for African sleeping sickness”

  1. mikesum32 says:

    Whatever happened to just releasing things with no strings attached ?

    I can understand a song, book,or movie, but does a test for a disease really benefit from a Creative Commons licence ?

    Didn’t altruistic people just give these things away for free in the past?

    After reading the text, it seems the paper is what is released under Creative Commons, not the test.

  2. pengo says:

    For people wondering which CC license: Distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

    This is the least restrictive license. Bravo.

  3. Kieran O'Neill says:

    Hmmm … The test itself carries no license. The paper describing the test has been released CC (as are most articles under the Public Library of Science, as well as Biomed Central).

    In theory I think they could have patented the test, but now that it’s published I think they’ve invalidated that option (probably deliberately).

    It’s really cool, though that Plos do a “Journal of Neglected Tropical Diseases”. Having seen a few graphs showing how much research goes into cancer and heart disease (the main killers of developed nation citizens) versus research into diseases that are pandemic in developing nations, my faith in the overall morality of our species isn’t very high.

    Incidentally, what is even cooler about this is the simplicity of the reagents and equipment required. I strongly suspect they could mass produce these for under US$1 per test.

  4. GuidoDavid says:

    There must be some kind of licensing, otherwise somebody will try to take it, patent it and sue your ass.

    There is a PLOS-like journal about neglected diseases caused by trypanosomatids, this is, Sleeping disease, Chagas disease and Leishmaniasis:

  5. schmod says:

    Personally, I’ve always liked the zlib license. It’s probably even less restrictive than Creative Commons (although it doesn’t have the backing of a big organization)

    Its terms are roughly as follows:
    You may do whatever the heck you want with [product] as long as:
    1) We get credit if you modify and redistribute.
    2) You don’t sue us. We’re not liable.

  6. IWood says:

    That’s fantastasmdfv skl m c//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

  7. Takuan says:

    clean shot through the base of the skull?

  8. prom77 says:

    How exactly do you provide attribution for a medical procedure? For that matter can a technique for doing something (medical or otherwise) even be copyrighted in the first place?

    I think you may mean that the article describing the procedure was published under a CC license.

  9. A New Challenger says:

    I was going to ask if IWOOD had been playing too much forumwarz lately but now I think I see what he did there. Insert appropriate owl macro here.

  10. Agent 86 says:

    To answer your quest – No, it can not be copyrighted. The question you want to ask would be “Can a technique for doing something (medical or otherwise) even be patented in the first place?”

Leave a Reply