|
 |
Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> The results are "open source" for the scientific/research community
>> freely as the website states somewhere, this maybe means the public.
>
> The page you posted says "public domain". That's not very helpful if the
> people who initially get the results don't actually publish them.
>
>> people take unfair advantage is no reason to stop doing non-profit and
>> other altruistic efforts, all the contrary, "kill" them with love. :-D
>
> No, but it means I can dedicate my limited charitable resources to
> something that makes more of a difference, just like I donate money to
> those who spend $0.90/dollar on the people being helped instead of
> $0.90/dollar being spent on administration.
>
Well is your call, and whatever helps harmless to the proxy I think is
OK. But I'd advise you that not because some companies who act unfairly
and get benefit from WCG, it doesn't mean the project itself is wrong
and is not worth running it. You can't spec all companies that take
advantage from WCG (if Monsanto is) have an eternal flawless behavior to
consider WCG to be worth the effort, what those companies do is not on
control of WCG at all, besides we're Humans and as I've proved here,
even with the best of intentions your deeds sometimes bluntly betray you.
I see your point, they didn't had any compassion what so ever with the
poor farmers, maybe they were legally correct but is just wrong take the
few resources poor people have. I think instead they should have given
this poor farmers seeds for a VERY low price or for free, and if greed
is their drive, call the newspapers and tell them how good they are with
the poor farmers getting free advertising/marketing.
A wise man said something like this: "The benefit of the group is what
is good for the group and the individual". Being this an ideal case, we
have to approximate at it as much as possible. We are inherently
imperfect, we need ECC (Error checking and correcting) through compassion.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
