3 ms·

In a way, that is what he is actually doing: Over the next few months, we will start by asking our collaborators to open source everything from Lydia’s

In a way, that is what he is actually doing: Over the next few months, we will start by asking our collaborators to open source everything from Lydia’s N-of-1— the process, costs, contracts, protocols, assays, cell lines and data.

ailideex 7y ago
I'm not sure how you get from open sourcing "process, costs, contracts, protocols, assays, cell lines and data" to open sourcing a baby as "process, costs, contracts, protocols, assays, cell lines and data" is not a "baby" nor is it the source code of a baby. If they licensed their Baby's DNA under some open source license then maybe we could say that they were open sourcing their baby, but: - Don't think that is what they were doing. - Not sure they own the copyright of their baby's DNA. - Don't think that would be legal to do.
- monkeynotes 7y ago
  I think you guys are unnecessarily being pedantic about the semantics here. Obviously the parents are software tech people, and so there is some poetic license with the headline. It's not really click bait as it is in good faith, and it isn't really misleading to anyone who can understand the bias of tech people to relate everything they do to their passion. It isn't a journalistic article and so the writer should be forgiven for using a touch of their creativity with the title. Had this been from a news organization I would probably feel rather differently.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mkl 7y ago
On the face of it that's just publishing. Open source is more about the license you publish with. The only bit that seems like open source is "anyone performing an N-of-1 should be able to tap into this repository as long as they contribute back into it", which implies a share-alike kind of license. Not sure how copyrightable this type of thing is though, so it might be just reliant on good will. I think the title is total clickbait and not what's happening at all.

ailideex 7y ago

I'm not sure how you get from open sourcing "process, costs, contracts, protocols, assays, cell lines and data" to open sourcing a baby as "process, costs, contracts, protocols, assays, cell lines and data" is not a "baby" nor is it the source code of a baby. If they licensed their Baby's DNA under some open source license then maybe we could say that they were open sourcing their baby, but: - Don't think that is what they were doing. - Not sure they own the copyright of their baby's DNA. - Don't think that would be legal to do.

monkeynotes 7y ago
I think you guys are unnecessarily being pedantic about the semantics here. Obviously the parents are software tech people, and so there is some poetic license with the headline. It's not really click bait as it is in good faith, and it isn't really misleading to anyone who can understand the bias of tech people to relate everything they do to their passion. It isn't a journalistic article and so the writer should be forgiven for using a touch of their creativity with the title. Had this been from a news organization I would probably feel rather differently.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mkl 7y ago

On the face of it that's just publishing. Open source is more about the license you publish with. The only bit that seems like open source is "anyone performing an N-of-1 should be able to tap into this repository as long as they contribute back into it", which implies a share-alike kind of license. Not sure how copyrightable this type of thing is though, so it might be just reliant on good will. I think the title is total clickbait and not what's happening at all.