Bbf:Frequently Asked Questions: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:


===This sounds like open source software, are you guys affiliated with GNU?  Why don’t you have a recursive acronym?===  
===This sounds like open source software, are you guys affiliated with GNU?  Why don’t you have a recursive acronym?===  
We aren’t formally affiliated, but Hal Abelson (one of our contributors) was a founding director of the FSF. Our acronym isn’t recursive because we’re biological engineers, you hax0r.  
We aren’t formally affiliated, but Hal Abelson and Gerry Sussman (two of our contributors) have been closely involved with the FSF. Our acronym isn’t recursive because we’re biological engineers, you hax0r.  


===There’s no Microsoft of biological engineering, who are you guys fighting?===  
===There’s no Microsoft of biological engineering, who are you guys fighting?===  

Revision as of 11:12, 2 June 2005

This is a crappy FAQ, what's the deal?

Just wanted to get the ball rolling here, please add and edit excessively.

You said that “today the ability to make use of basic biological functions is stovepiped. Why would you use a word like “stovepiped”? can you give some examples?

We have no excuse for stovepiped. One example is gene transfer in plants which is held under strong patent by Agrobiotechs. Drew you had some other examples in lab meeting…

What sort of licenses do you offer – will it be “viral”?

One of the current activities being undertaken by the BFF is the development of legal technologies that are appropriate for the particular legal landscape of biological functions. So we don’t know yet, but we probably won’t call it viral. We will be coordinating with Science Commons to develop this technology.

This sounds like open source software, are you guys affiliated with GNU? Why don’t you have a recursive acronym?

We aren’t formally affiliated, but Hal Abelson and Gerry Sussman (two of our contributors) have been closely involved with the FSF. Our acronym isn’t recursive because we’re biological engineers, you hax0r.

There’s no Microsoft of biological engineering, who are you guys fighting?

We’re not fighting anybody; we hope to see biological engineering develop differently than the software industry. Early establishment of a biological commons (to be shared by industry as well as individuals) might help to prevent the “us vs. them” attitude that occurred in software.

What incentive would a company have to use a component from the BBF?

Having a shared pool of basic functions would help innovation and growth in the biotech industry as a whole. Similar to how the basic functions in software are shared as an open commons. There would be much less innovation if someone had a copyright on “AND” or “OR”, for instance.

Doesn’t having an open commons of biological function make things more dangerous rather than less?

We believe that establishing a productive, responsible community of biological engineers will far outweigh providing greater access to technology for those who would misuse it. This community will also be more equipped to respond to accidental or intentional risks. [reshma/drew/etc can add to this]

Where can I read more about the idea of a commons and distributed innovation?

Here’s the reading list suggested by science commons.

How can I help?

Are you a student or professor? Start a standard parts registry node at your school. Graphic artist? Design us a cool logo! We’re always looking for interested volunteers, contact endy@mit.edu for more information.