World’s First Intrinsically Seedless Cannabis

[Randar]

When was the last time that you saw $5 cigarettes in many states? The problem with total legalization isn't just "big casnnabis" taking over. Its the government taxing the hell out of everything and then deciding that it is bad for the children, so they will tax it until you cant afford it anymore.

Yes and no. The initial problem with legalization will be Big Cannabis. Mainly because they will fight tooth and nail to try and limit home grow. Similar to alcohol (re-)legalization. Total legalization should entail home grow. Taxation is not a huge issue if home grow is legal.

 

[Ryno_nuggs]

Good point. That's still a good reason to release genetics under a free license though, to keep big cannabis from stealing those genetics whenever they want to.

There are some science companies putting together genetic databases to prevent big canna from swooping in and trying to "claim" genetics. The fear of big canna will more directly effect the smaller growers who have been providing cannabis to dispensaries already.. It will have little effect on home growers.

As mentioned above, it has been illegal and that stopped no one.

Also on episode 44 of the kis organics podcast touches on the topic of these scientists who are working on building a data base of genetics/cultivars. This will protect the breeders from big canna swooping in and trying to patent different genetics they didn't create. Sub cool is one of the breeders involved.

 

[Rasterman]

So only the things that you really want should be free? This is always a weird conversations not only because people want free access to others property. I am sometimes amused by folks admitting that they stolle this guys stuff and that guys stuff and crossed them and are now making money on it. Sure some breeders may be okay with that, but how many folks would be sued by the original breeders if their product was totally legal and subject to IP protections under the law?

No, not free as in free beer. Free to sell, buy, breed new strains, etc. An open source-style license would protect the genetics once attached to the license, from ever being stolen by a conglomerate and owned because they found a special pheno and crossed it with their own proprietary genetics.

It's similar to the way things work now except that there's nothing stopping big canna from taking Mephisto genetics, making a cross and preventing companies like Mephisto from subsequently developing strains from that cross because it's now copyrighted.

 

[Rasterman]

There are some science companies putting together genetic databases to prevent big canna from swooping in and trying to "claim" genetics. The fear of big canna will more directly effect the smaller growers who have been providing cannabis to dispensaries already.. It will have little effect on home growers.

As mentioned above, it has been illegal and that stopped no one.

Also on episode 44 of the kis organics podcast touches on the topic of these scientists who are working on building a data base of genetics/cultivars. This will protect the breeders from big canna swooping in and trying to patent different genetics they didn't create. Sub cool is one of the breeders involved.

I've read about that and what they're doing is a needed thing as well. This is just another approach.

 

[Rasterman]

Here's an explanation of the GNU General license and how it applies to software (from https:www.gnu.org):

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

 

[Randar]

Here's an explanation of the GNU General license and how it applies to software (from https:www.gnu.org):

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

An easy way to think of this is to just think about Monsanto and their practice of shutting down farmers who "grow" their genetics even though it was the wind which pollinated the farmer's crops with Monsanto genetics. It's ridiculous. And while I think cannabis will never get to that point, systems should be put in place so as to ensure they don't.

 

[Ryno_nuggs]

Here's an explanation of the GNU General license and how it applies to software (from https:www.gnu.org):

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive sour ce code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

When it come to our precious plant, protecting the genetics is nothing similar to a software program. If you want a example of how this can work to protect our genetics from big canna companies, you have to compare to big ag. There is so much more to it than a copyright, or a patent. Look at vegetables or the ornamental plant market.

You can't just own or patent a plant, and prevent others from growing. It is a completely different ball game than patenting a software program.

Even if someone has a patent on a say specific tomatoe cultivator, they can't prevent anyone from growing it. All it does is prevent people from being able to sell and make a profit off of it.

Either way, I think we are both agreeing in a different way, that we have to keep the Montesano's of the world from taking over the industry. This work is already being done. Most or every state has a herbarium. This is where you send you precious genetics to get a paper trail on your work. This is were we can have proof of ownership, and keep big canna from trying to take over.

 

[Rasterman]

When it come to our precious plant, protecting the genetics is nothing similar to a software program. If you want a example of how this can work to protect our genetics from big canna companies, you have to compare to big ag. There is so much more to it than a copyright, or a patent. Look at vegetables or the ornamental plant market.

You can't just own or patent a plant, and prevent others from growing. It is a completely different ball game than patenting a software program.

Even if someone has a patent on a say specific tomatoe cultivator, they can't prevent anyone from growing it. All it does is prevent people from being able to sell and make a profit off of it.

Either way, I think we are both agreeing in a different way, that we have to keep the Montesano's of the world from taking over the industry. This work is already being done. Most or every state has a herbarium. This is where you send you precious genetics to get a paper trail on your work. This is were we can have proof of ownership, and keep big canna from trying to take over.

Not very many software programs are actually patented. They're intellectual property. The same thing that Monsanto started doing to genetics.

 

[Ryno_nuggs]

Not very many software programs are actually patented. They're intellectual property. The same thing that Monsanto started doing to genetics.

So you are comparing a computer software program to plant genetics?

 

[Ryno_nuggs]

An easy way to think of this is to just think about Monsanto and their practice of shutting down farmers who "grow" their genetics even though it was the wind which pollinated the farmer's crops with Monsanto genetics. It's ridiculous. And while I think cannabis will never get to that point, systems should be put in place so as to ensure they don't.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but if someone else crop pollinate yours, they have no right to shut you down, unless you already are using their genetics to grow you crop. If you have a different cultivator, that get pollinated from a montasanto crop next door, that creates different cultivar that montasanto does not have the right to.

It is legal to breed with a patented cultivar, as long as it is crossed with something else. It is also legal to grow a patent, you just can't sell that particular cultivar.


Either way we are all agreeing on the same PRINCIPLE of keeping big AG (which is these big canna companies) out. We need to stop separating big canna and big ag. Big canna is going to be big ag.