Github'd genome license has interesting restrictions for cloning | Hacker News Reader

Github'd genome license has interesting restrictions for cloning

github.com

54 pointskilowatt18 comments

My first thought was "do clones count as kin for the 'closest of kin' statements in that license?"

Last thing this guy needs is more reasons for his clones to kill him.

First, if this data has been obtained via a service such as 23andme cloning wouldn't be possible anyway, as the identified SNPs are only a small subset of the full genome.

However, lets assume that this is a full genome - in regard to cloning there may be some interesting legal consequences in some countries: For example, in European countries there have been some cases where sperm donors have been sued to pay alimonies. It wouldn't suprise me that if someone clones your DNA, one of those courts would define you as legal father and force you to pay alimonies.

Oh, it's much worse than that. Not only would the original be the father, it would also be the same person. Hence, the original could be tried for any and every crime the clone commited.

That fails the identical twin test: is one half of a pair of identical twins who share the same DNA able to be tried for any crime that the other commits? The answer is obviously no.

I read this as restrictions on cloning the git repo rather than the person, I'm obviously too deep in the code!

Outside of a few circumstances, it's not so interesting to clone a whole organism. A gene? Absolutely, yes. Do it all the time. A cell? Sure, especially if we can create a novel cell line. But a whole multicellular organism? ...I really can't see much scientific use for that.

Well, this makes that lock of Justin Beiber's hair I bought on eBay even more valuable - it's Royalty Free!

I don't really own that... but seeing as bits of ephemeral DNA-containing material from famous people tend to be collectible, it's a plausible future possibility.

Interestingly unenforceable :P

Well yeah, it would seem to violate the 13th amendment..

Edit: I believe it's a form of debt bondage (peonage) that is prohibited by international law too. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

You're assuming the clone would be born in the US.

You're assuming that the governing law is that of the place of birth of the clone.

Do you have any case law to assume otherwise?

True, but it isn't all that dissimilar from the genetic patents that Monsanto and similar hold.

Can you elaborate?

Monsanto clones in genes that are resistant to its herbicide, Roundup, which is a simple glycine derivative. These molecules bind tightly to a key enzyme in three amino acid synthesis pathways, and since these molecules bind with such affinity, the enzyme can't dislodge it within a reasonable timeframe/equilibrium. Without the AAs, the plant dies.

Due to patents, Monsanto owns the rights to any plants with the gene--including offspring. Farmers have to continually license the plants to grow them. One unfortunate soul had a neighboring farmer's crops cross pollinate his own, and Monsanto came down hard on him--it was a pretty big incident.

Save for one fact, there is no law which prohibits the owning of animals or planet, or indentured servitude of animals or plants. Thus what Monsanto does is enforceable while this would likely not be.