On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:59:11PM +0100, Peter Rice wrote:
> On 16/09/2013 11:31, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> >This is really not Debian-related, except insofar as the software in
> >question is something that might have been in Debian one day. I talked
> >about that with people on debian-med recently.
Hi Steve,
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:59:11PM +0100, Peter Rice wrote:
On 16/09/2013 11:31, Faheem Mitha wrote:
This is really not Debian-related, except insofar as the software in
question is something that might have been in Debian one day. I t
If purely natural facts were considered copyrightable (! -
nothing IS copyrightable unless considered so) that would
mean no one were allowed to re-research nature.
Sequence a gene ? Nope, already sequenced. That's absurd.
However, this intuitive logic applies to the *pure*
"natural" fact *only*,
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:24:07PM +0200, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> It's an extremely fine line to walk. And greed, stupidity,
> and fear will make worse of it.
At least in recent years a movement has arisen to demand and
try to make mandatory publication of unrigged facts,
regardless of license.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:37:18PM +0530, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> It is not really a big
> deal either way, but if I had some definite information
There is no definite information to be had because it is
exactly that: different opinion in different places.
And that's mostly due to people being eit
5 matches
Mail list logo
