OT Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation

[Stephen Pollei <stephen_pollei@comcast.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3101 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 11:35, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:37:25 CST, root said:
> 
> > It's based on the design of the license.  Under Cherokee Nation Law, you
> > can have and claim trade secrets in public code released under a public
> > license.  This makes it very easy for individual contributors to 
> > enforce their rights in the US.  We spent months researching this, and yes,
> > it holds up under our laws.  
> 
> You will have trouble with "rights in the US", because of the definition of
> "trade secret" includes 18 USC 1839 (3):
The "trade secret" definition that Jeff is using is at
http://www.gadugi.org/article.php?story=2005010611364165 . I'd suggest
that anyone interested go there and leave the lkml alone after this.
> 
> (3) the term "trade secret" means all forms and types of financial,
> business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information,
> including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs,
> prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes,
> whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or
> memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in
> writing if --
His says [[
(d) “Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern,
compilation, program, device, method, technique, product, system,
process, design, prototype, procedure, computer programming instruction
or code, that:

(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not
being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper
means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its
disclosure or use, and
(ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the
circumstances to maintain its secrecy. ]]
So there are differences as to what is "Information"; however none such
as I can see that would alter the outcome.
> 
> (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and
His says much the same. So I also have a hard time with the conclusion
that something licensed under a free or Open Source license and then
published could be construed as being subject to reasonable efforts to
maintain it's secrecy.
> 
> (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential,
> from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through
> proper means by, the public; and
Seems word-for-word the same. And I would think that an Free or Open
source licensed work that is published would be "generally known to" and
"readily ascertainable".
> 
> You'll have a hard time convincing a jury not on the reservation that publishing
> something as open source is at all a "reasonable measure to keep it secret".
>

-- 
http://dmoz.org/profiles/pollei.html
http://sourceforge.net/users/stephen_pollei/
http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=2455954990164098214
http://stephen_pollei.home.comcast.net/
GPG Key fingerprint = EF6F 1486 EC27 B5E7 E6E1  3C01 910F 6BB5 4A7D 9677

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]