The Synaptic Leap

For the time being at least, it seems to me that the Creative Commons Attribution License used by PLOS is the way to go. This license cuts off the fewest options. The share-alike requirement additionally employed by the OpenWetware community could be considered more "restrictive" (or at least more aggressive) to the extent that it requires those who build upon the material in the malaria community to make their work available under the same terms. That may be something we want to do at some point, but right now I am not sure it is appropriate.   As for whether the license appears in the footer of every page or not, that does not really make a difference legally. But an appearance on every page does make things more clear. So if it's not too much of a hassle, why not have it appear in the footer of every page.At some point, we should also discuss issues regarding publication. IMHO, we want to make it clear to the community that contribution to this project is in no way inconsistent with conventional publication. So we could have "embargo" periods for information contributed. Also, if the publication itself has particular restrictions even after the article is out, we would work with that.

It is important to think about what we're trying to do strategically instead of just choosing licenses.  For the pilot stage, just doing science in full view of the world is clearly enough.  Debating copyright looks like a diversion of energy in that environment.  For the long term, the short answer is that our work will only be meaningful if sponsors like Gates decide to take it forward into wet biology and ultimately animal and clinical trials.  We should set policy in consultation with them, the whole point is to do something they find congenial.When we do get around to thinking about copyrights etc. we should be careful to remember that this environment is very different from computer open source and that old ways of protecting the information may need to be modified.  In the database world, companies have no copyright at all -- but practical "self-help" like embargos work really, really well.  This isn't just about preserving publication, although that's one issue.  It also matters if you want to do things like make sure that somebody doesn't come in and patent quick and easy extensions of the group's initial insight.  Or if you want to let organizations like Gates take out patent rights on drugs where they think that this would be worthwhile.  An embargo is easy to do, gives you a reasonable time to exploit the knowledge on your own, and gives the information to the world once you've done as much with it as you are likely to.  For most purposes an elegant way to proceed.As I say, all of this is premature at this point.  The main point is the IP rights are not a goal, just a tool that we should use if (and only if) it serves some identifiable end.