Re: OT Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation

[root <root@mail.gadugi.org>]

> > 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".
> >

If the license says the receipient of a piece of code must acknowledge 
and protect the trade secrets it contains, then it's enforceable.  We trump
state courts on the grounds of sovereinty, so a state court isn't able 
to reverse one of our courts unless there's a question of Federal Law.

The Federal Courts can in vary narrow areas reverese our courts, but since
this license represents a consentual commerical transaction with an 
Indian Nation, most folks will have to appeal to the US supreme court 
to get this reversed -- the Federal Courts are bound by the constitutional
provisions regarding sovereignty.  Makes Open Source code very easy to protect
in state courts under existing Trade Secrete law, and yes, this is 
a modified version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  Please note 
the use of the word "individual" in the test.  


The comments from folks are very good an helpful.