The Synaptic Leap

We're drawing up a contract (with WHO and the ARC) to cover our new grant (and hence this site). Our business office would like to know which Creative Commons licence is most suitable. I was assuming Attribution 3.0 unported, since this allows sharing and remixing under attribution. On the face of it, a better alternative is Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, since this also requires that anyone using the research has to distribute their own work under a similar licence.

Hello,

I'm quite new to the Synaptic Leap so apologies if this is already covered somewhere that I have missed.

I'm curious if any molecular entities, vaccines or biologics have already been licensed as open source through the FDA or alternative organization?

Kind regards,

Christine

DRAFT READY FOR COMMENT

The Synaptic Leap is not responsible for, nor do we lay claim to, any scientific discoveries made or discussed on our site.

Patents

In general scientific discoveries placed in the public domain, i.e. this web site, can not subsequently be the subject of a patent.  You can of course work around this by posting only pieces of the science here and holding back sufficient information for a patent. However, the aim of The Synaptic Leap is to encourage open and collaborative science. The more open the better. We hope that you will openly discuss and pursue collaborative scientific discoveries using our site.  

Copyrights

Any discussions, blogs or other content authored by you is presumed to be copyright protected according to the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. If you wish to have a different copyright policy for something you post, we recommend that you describe your specific copyright limitations e.g. "All rights reserved."

The WHO world congress has wound up, and of the resolutions an important one with regards access to essential medicines is:

"In order to address the need for people in developing countries to access necessary medicines, vaccines and diagnostics, the Assembly also agreed to an intergovernmental working group open to all interested Member States to draw up a global strategy and plan of action in order to provide a medium-term framework based on the recommendations of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health. The working group shall report to the Sixtieth World Health Assembly on the progress made, giving particular attention to needs-driven research and other potential areas for early implementation action. The working group shall submit the final global strategy and plan of action to the Sixty-first World Health Assembly."

This follows a major report on the issue of access to medicines (such as praziquantel, featured in a TSL project) from the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health. I'm not clear on the legal recommendations (anyone like to distil the report?) but it is good to see movement at the highest levels.

We're now in the embryonic stages of the community.  At this juncture, we have no copyright notifications on the site.  I'd like advice on what is appropriate for our goals.   Open Wetware is using a Creative Commons logo in their footer.  Here's a link to their copyright wording.  PLoS on the otherhand only has a copyright footer showing up on the article pages themselves.