Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jeff V. Merkey]

This is the final post on this particular thread.  I said I would
reveal to LKML the purpose behind this original proposal when the time
was right.  The GPL buyout offer has now expired and is formally closed,
now is the time to explian.

The purpose behind the buyout was to convert as much Linux code over
as possible to another open source operating system project which 
is sponsored at www.gadugi.org.  This project is hosted by the Cherokee 
Nation and is sovereign under US Federal Laws.  This project is merging
the Linux Kernel with the Open Source NetWare project and distributing
the operating system.  The site is operational and the full code repository
will be posted with the merged operating system after the Cherokee Nation
Public License is published in January.  Anyone who
wishes to participate can email the site and get an account.  

Despite dubious reporting and wild conjecture, the buyout was not geared 
towards helping SCO, or in concert with M$ as some sort of grand 
conspiracy.  It was geared towards creating a new licensing and legal 
model for open source development.  The Cherokee Nation is enacting 
legislation to promote open source development.  So the whole buyout 
was me and a few folks attempting to convert Linux GPL code into 
a licensing model and Cherokee Nation Copyrights that renders the 
code sovereign and immune from litigation outside of tribal courts
and jurisdiction.  So much for all the SCO and other legal wranglings
regarding this effort and open source in general.  We are immune from
these people and so are any projects that use our licensing or host 
on our servers.  I personally told Darl "Mad Dog" McBride at SCO 
good luck and to buzz off.  

We are adopting Federal Copyright and Trademark law, and Federal Patent
law into our courts.  We are also enacting trade secret laws that make it
easier for folks to claim trade secrets on Open Source code for 
individual authors.  

Whether anyone here bites at this or not neither adds or detracts from 
the opportunity and what we are doing.  We have been around a long
time in North America; over 7,000 years from our own
recorded history, which is a lot longer than even IBM has been around.  We
will be here 1000 years from now (and hopefully so will our website and 
open source projects).  

Wa-Do

Jeff V. Merkey

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Timothy D. Witham]

On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 15:27 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> 
> This is the final post on this particular thread.  I said I would
> reveal to LKML the purpose behind this original proposal when the time
> was right.  The GPL buyout offer has now expired and is formally closed,
> now is the time to explian.
> 
> The purpose behind the buyout was to convert as much Linux code over
> as possible to another open source operating system project which 
> is sponsored at www.gadugi.org.  This project is hosted by the Cherokee 
> Nation and is sovereign under US Federal Laws.  This project is merging
> the Linux Kernel with the Open Source NetWare project and distributing
> the operating system.  The site is operational and the full code repository
> will be posted with the merged operating system after the Cherokee Nation
> Public License is published in January.  Anyone who
> wishes to participate can email the site and get an account.  
> 
> Despite dubious reporting and wild conjecture, the buyout was not geared 
> towards helping SCO, or in concert with M$ as some sort of grand 
> conspiracy.  It was geared towards creating a new licensing and legal 
> model for open source development.  The Cherokee Nation is enacting 
> legislation to promote open source development.  So the whole buyout 
> was me and a few folks attempting to convert Linux GPL code into 
> a licensing model and Cherokee Nation Copyrights that renders the 
> code sovereign and immune from litigation outside of tribal courts
> and jurisdiction.  So much for all the SCO and other legal wranglings
> regarding this effort and open source in general.  We are immune from
> these people and so are any projects that use our licensing or host 
> on our servers.  I personally told Darl "Mad Dog" McBride at SCO 
> good luck and to buzz off.  
> 
> We are adopting Federal Copyright and Trademark law, and Federal Patent
> law into our courts.  We are also enacting trade secret laws that make it
> easier for folks to claim trade secrets on Open Source code for 
> individual authors.  
> 
   So am I reading this right.  You are talking code that people have
written under various licenses and just putting your own license 
on it?

Tim

> Whether anyone here bites at this or not neither adds or detracts from 
> the opportunity and what we are doing.  We have been around a long
> time in North America; over 7,000 years from our own
> recorded history, which is a lot longer than even IBM has been around.  We
> will be here 1000 years from now (and hopefully so will our website and 
> open source projects).  
> 
> Wa-Do
> 
> Jeff V. Merkey
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- 
Timothy D. Witham - Chief Technology Officer - wookie@osdl.org
Open Source Development Lab Inc - A non-profit corporation
12725 SW Millikan Way - Suite 400 - Beaverton OR, 97005
(503)-906-1911  (office)    (503)-702-2871   (cell)
(503)-626-2436  (fax)

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jeff V. Merkey]

> > 
>    So am I reading this right.  You are talking code that people have
> written under various licenses and just putting your own license 
> on it?
> 
> Tim
> 

GPL code remains GPL code. Code written and republished under Cherokee
Nation Copyrights or Cherokee Nation Public license will become sovereign and 
under tribal jurisdiction and laws.  We are publishing the draft legislation
before the end of the year on the gadugi.org site, and all open source 
community members are invited to comment and help us refine the final 
drafts before we submit them to the Cherokee Nation Tribal and Constitutional
Councils for vote and passage.  

Jeff

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 15:47 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
[...]
> GPL code remains GPL code. Code written and republished under Cherokee
> Nation Copyrights or Cherokee Nation Public license will become sovereign and 

You probably cannot "republish code under a different license" -
especially not if it was released under Author's rights (in german:
"Urheberrecht") which is not uncommon in continental Europe.
Anf getting rid of the GPL (which your "republish under some new
license" implies) requires IMO the explicit written agreement of all
concerned persons.

BTW the only possibility of getting rid of Author's right is to wait for
the death of the last author of a given text/music/source code and wait
than 70 years (as it stands now).

> under tribal jurisdiction and laws.  We are publishing the draft legislation

So you are simply forking a part of the Linux kernel thus making all of
the other code inthat project GPL and probably not gaining anything
else.
Have fun with your Linux kernel fork similar to all other forks ...

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:

>On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 15:47 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>[...]
>  
>
>>GPL code remains GPL code. Code written and republished under Cherokee
>>Nation Copyrights or Cherokee Nation Public license will become sovereign and 
>>    
>>
>
>You probably cannot "republish code under a different license" -
>especially not if it was released under Author's rights (in german:
>"Urheberrecht") which is not uncommon in continental Europe.
>Anf getting rid of the GPL (which your "republish under some new
>license" implies) requires IMO the explicit written agreement of all
>concerned persons.
>
>BTW the only possibility of getting rid of Author's right is to wait for
>the death of the last author of a given text/music/source code and wait
>than 70 years (as it stands now).
>
>  
>
>>under tribal jurisdiction and laws.  We are publishing the draft legislation
>>    
>>
>
>So you are simply forking a part of the Linux kernel thus making all of
>the other code inthat project GPL and probably not gaining anything
>else.
>Have fun with your Linux kernel fork similar to all other forks ...
>
>	Bernd
>  
>
A copyright holder can re-release their code under any license they 
choose, even if
they have released under GPL previously.  This is because GPL code 
really isn't free,
it's owned by the copyright holder.  And honestly, the way the GPL is 
worded it
in fact affects an implied transfer of copyright ownership to whomeve 
receives it.

Truly free code isn't copyrighted by any individual, or is copyrighted 
by an organization
that uses a license that really is free.

Jeff

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 09:11 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> A copyright holder can re-release their code under any license they 
> choose, even if

ACK. For a given piece of code this means all copyright holders (not
just one).

> they have released under GPL previously.  This is because GPL code 
> really isn't free,

No, this has nothing to do with it.

> it's owned by the copyright holder.  And honestly, the way the GPL is 

That holds for all written works - text, music, source code,
paintings, ...

> worded it
> in fact affects an implied transfer of copyright ownership to whomeve 
> receives it.

Yes, and this is actually makes the GPL incompatible with Author's
rights. However, you are allowed to transfer all rights of use of your
works (which all the artist and programmers are doing) which is usually
enough to satisfy the GPL. IANAL though (and this has not been tested in
court AFAIK).
And for the Linux kernel, Linus actually likes it that way AFAICT.

> Truly free code isn't copyrighted by any individual, or is copyrighted 
> by an organization
> that uses a license that really is free.

That depends on the definition of "free" (and the goals of the defining
parties) and there are more than one - e.g. behind the GPL and BSD
license are different interpretationms of "free".

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jesper Juhl]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> 
> 
> This is the final post on this particular thread.  I said I would
> reveal to LKML the purpose behind this original proposal when the time
> was right.  The GPL buyout offer has now expired and is formally closed,
> now is the time to explian.
> 
> The purpose behind the buyout was to convert as much Linux code over
> as possible to another open source operating system project which 
> is sponsored at www.gadugi.org.  This project is hosted by the Cherokee 
> Nation and is sovereign under US Federal Laws.  This project is merging
> the Linux Kernel with the Open Source NetWare project and distributing
> the operating system.  The site is operational and the full code repository
> will be posted with the merged operating system after the Cherokee Nation
> Public License is published in January.  Anyone who
> wishes to participate can email the site and get an account.  
> 
> Despite dubious reporting and wild conjecture, the buyout was not geared 
> towards helping SCO, or in concert with M$ as some sort of grand 
> conspiracy.  It was geared towards creating a new licensing and legal 
> model for open source development.  The Cherokee Nation is enacting 
> legislation to promote open source development.  So the whole buyout 
> was me and a few folks attempting to convert Linux GPL code into 
> a licensing model and Cherokee Nation Copyrights that renders the 
> code sovereign and immune from litigation outside of tribal courts
> and jurisdiction.  So much for all the SCO and other legal wranglings
> regarding this effort and open source in general.  We are immune from
> these people and so are any projects that use our licensing or host 
> on our servers.  I personally told Darl "Mad Dog" McBride at SCO 
> good luck and to buzz off.  
> 
> We are adopting Federal Copyright and Trademark law, and Federal Patent
> law into our courts.  We are also enacting trade secret laws that make it
> easier for folks to claim trade secrets on Open Source code for 
> individual authors.  
> 
> Whether anyone here bites at this or not neither adds or detracts from 
> the opportunity and what we are doing.  We have been around a long
> time in North America; over 7,000 years from our own
> recorded history, which is a lot longer than even IBM has been around.  We
> will be here 1000 years from now (and hopefully so will our website and 
> open source projects).  
> 

I'm wondering why you didn't submit this explanation at the very begining. 
Not that it changes my personal position that my own contributions are GPL 
and nothing else, but it might have resulted in different responses to 
your original mail if people had known the full story.

-- 
Jesper Juhl

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jeff V. Merkey]

> 
> I'm wondering why you didn't submit this explanation at the very begining. 
> Not that it changes my personal position that my own contributions are GPL 
> and nothing else, but it might have resulted in different responses to 
> your original mail if people had known the full story.
> 
> -- 
> Jesper Juhl

I was not able to because the Cherokee Nation had not fully completed
the planning stages and I did not have authority form our leaders to
discuss this until it reached this stage. Whether you or anyone stays 
with the GPL or not does not lessen your ability to contribute 
to our efforts.  I would invite you and anyone else who wishes to 
help us define a body of laws to promote open source and you are always
free to participate with us.

Jeff

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jesper Juhl]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> > 
> > I'm wondering why you didn't submit this explanation at the very begining. 
> > Not that it changes my personal position that my own contributions are GPL 
> > and nothing else, but it might have resulted in different responses to 
> > your original mail if people had known the full story.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jesper Juhl
> 
> I was not able to because the Cherokee Nation had not fully completed
> the planning stages and I did not have authority form our leaders to
> discuss this until it reached this stage. 

Then you should, perhaps, just have waited to post your original mail 
until you had such auth.

-- 
Jesper

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jeff V. Merkey]

> > 
> > I was not able to because the Cherokee Nation had not fully completed
> > the planning stages and I did not have authority form our leaders to
> > discuss this until it reached this stage. 
> 
> Then you should, perhaps, just have waited to post your original mail 
> until you had such auth.
> 
> -- 
> Jesper
> 

It's always odd that your viewpoint is always 20/20 when looking
out of a rear view mirror of a 4x4 vehicle all the while
the windshield is mired in mud from the road and the windshield
wipers are full blast.  

Anyway, old saying in Cherokee, 

   Ne-go-di-s-ge-sdi = "that's just the way it is."  

Jeff

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 20 December 2004 17:57, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>> > I was not able to because the Cherokee Nation had not fully
>> > completed the planning stages and I did not have authority form
>> > our leaders to discuss this until it reached this stage.
>>
>> Then you should, perhaps, just have waited to post your original
>> mail until you had such auth.
>>
>> --
>> Jesper
>
>It's always odd that your viewpoint is always 20/20 when looking
>out of a rear view mirror of a 4x4 vehicle all the while
>the windshield is mired in mud from the road and the windshield
>wipers are full blast.
>
>Anyway, old saying in Cherokee,
>
>   Ne-go-di-s-ge-sdi = "that's just the way it is."
>
>Jeff

At severe risk of starting a flame war all over again, here goes.

In other words, that $50 million offer was also just so much
vaporware.  Thats not a question, its a statement, because you
personally sure as h--- don't have $50 million to back it up and I
have serious doubts the council would have backed you.  $50 million is
a decent sum of money, even if they do have their own casino that may
be quite profitable.

Really now, are *you* doing the Cherokee Nation any good at all? 

Or are you just another promoter trying to take advantage of a
re-organization as they bring their government into the 21st century
and learn to cope with the effects of having their own casino and
(in your opinion) money to burn from it.  Maybe they see the
advantages of getting technical, in fact I'm sure they do, and can
probably do that far better for them without your kind of help.

I have visited the web site, as I'm sure some of the other
commentators here have also done, and viewed what I saw while keeping
in mind some of the many fine Cherokee people I've had the
pleasure of knowing in my 70 years.  Make no mistake, some of them
have been my mental superiors, and they will catch you up at some
point, if not this one.  Wilma would have run you off long ago, if she
were still President.

That said, I personally applaud them for the future direction they
seem to have chosen, but will not pass judgement on this new license
until the legal beagles have had a chance to disect the proposed
license when its finally published, and the chances of its being held
as valid in the courts of the rest of the world.  Believe me, I've
seen fine Cherokees screwed in the courts of this (great?) nation
several times, just because they were of Original American 
bloodlines.   Now I'd like them to be treated as equals for a change.

The feds say they are sovereign, but lets see if the acts match the
words.

The only other such setup within our borders is the Navajo Nation,
much larger in totall real estate, but they have not managed nearly
so well. Their main claim to fame is all the coal burning power plants
in the 4 corners area that feed LA with lots of electricity, but
renders large parts of the San Juan River basin uninhabitable with
its pollution because it is not federally emissions regulated. The
air gets pretty damned thick when mother nature puts a lid on it
preventing the dissipation of what was then, in 1979, of some 23
Gigawatts worth of coal burnt per hour, with another 40 some under
construction then.  NDI whats happened since.

Until then Jeff, the GPL is a damned fine license.  And I would like
to see it kept.

-- 
No Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.30% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Gene Heskett wrote:

>At severe risk of starting a flame war all over again, here goes.
>
>In other words, that $50 million offer was also just so much
>vaporware.  Thats not a question, its a statement, because you
>personally sure as h--- don't have $50 million to back it up and I
>have serious doubts the council would have backed you.  $50 million is
>a decent sum of money, even if they do have their own casino that may
>be quite profitable.
>
>  
>

It was for 50K not 50 million, and it was for real.

>Really now, are *you* doing the Cherokee Nation any good at all? 
>
>  
>
I am transferring all the knowledge I have ammased in my lifetime and 
career into our young men and women. We own a college of information 
technology, and guess who was just appointed a vice-chair to the board 
of regents for the university. Can you say "Professor Merkey I presume."


>Or are you just another promoter trying to take advantage of a
>re-organization as they 
>
I am a part of "they". I have been a member of the Cherokee Nation all 
my life.

>bring their government into the 21st century
>and learn to cope with the effects of having their own casino and
>(in your opinion) money to burn from it.  
>
We own dozens of casinos, the entire northeastern corner of Oklahoma, 
and we hold
more assets and cash than even IBM. We are not in any need of cash, BTW.

>Maybe they see the
>advantages of getting technical, in fact I'm sure they do, and can
>probably do that far better for them without your kind of help.
>  
>
It's to help our young men and women.

>I have visited the web site, as I'm sure some of the other
>commentators here have also done, and viewed what I saw while keeping
>in mind some of the many fine Cherokee people I've had the
>pleasure of knowing in my 70 years.  Make no mistake, some of them
>have been my mental superiors, and they will catch you up at some
>point, if not this one.  Wilma would have run you off long ago, if she
>were still President.
>
>  
>
I know Wilma and my people love me. That server you visited in housed at 
the Cherokee Nation tribal complex and was put their by the Chief and 
Tribal council. You had better know what you are talking about, Gene.

>That said, I personally applaud them for the future direction they
>seem to have chosen, but will not pass judgement on this new license
>until the legal beagles have had a chance to disect the proposed
>license when its finally published, and the chances of its being held
>as valid in the courts of the rest of the world.  Believe me, I've
>seen fine Cherokees screwed in the courts of this (great?) nation
>several times, just because they were of Original American 
>bloodlines.   Now I'd like them to be treated as equals for a change.
>  
>
I think we view ourselves as equals.

>The feds say they are sovereign, but lets see if the acts match the
>words.
>
>  
>

>Until then Jeff, the GPL is a damned fine license.  And I would like
>to see it kept.
>
>  
>
There will be other options.

Jeff

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote:
> 
> > At severe risk of starting a flame war all over again, here goes.
> > 
> > In other words, that $50 million offer was also just so much
> > vaporware.  Thats not a question, its a statement, because you
> > personally sure as h--- don't have $50 million to back it up and I
> > have serious doubts the council would have backed you.  $50 million is
> > a decent sum of money, even if they do have their own casino that may
> > be quite profitable.
> > 
> >  
> 
> It was for 50K not 50 million, and it was for real.

USD 50,000 (Fifty thousand US dollars)? And you mean to say you were 
serious?

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 03:27:23PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
[...]
> Despite dubious reporting and wild conjecture, the buyout was not geared 
> towards helping SCO, or in concert with M$ as some sort of grand 
> conspiracy.  It was geared towards creating a new licensing and legal 
> model for open source development.  The Cherokee Nation is enacting 
> legislation to promote open source development.  So the whole buyout 
> was me and a few folks attempting to convert Linux GPL code into 
> a licensing model and Cherokee Nation Copyrights that renders the 
> code sovereign and immune from litigation outside of tribal courts
> and jurisdiction.  So much for all the SCO and other legal wranglings
> regarding this effort and open source in general.  We are immune from
> these people and so are any projects that use our licensing or host 
> on our servers.  I personally told Darl "Mad Dog" McBride at SCO 
> good luck and to buzz off.  
[...]

As interesting and informative as this is, maybe there needs to be a
mailing list (linux-politics-discuss?) or something to serve as an
appropriate outlet for these kinds of discussions (as well as bitkeeper
licensing issues, C++ modules, etc.). It's a bit difficult to
appreciate the relevance of this kind of "political" message to a list
dedicated to kernel programming and cold, hard code.

Congratulations on your new directions and position. I hope there will
soon be a place for which your informative announcements are more
appropriate than linux-kernel.


- wli

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jeff V. Merkey]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:

>On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 03:27:23PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>[...]
>  
>
>>Despite dubious reporting and wild conjecture, the buyout was not geared 
>>towards helping SCO, or in concert with M$ as some sort of grand 
>>conspiracy.  It was geared towards creating a new licensing and legal 
>>model for open source development.  The Cherokee Nation is enacting 
>>legislation to promote open source development.  So the whole buyout 
>>was me and a few folks attempting to convert Linux GPL code into 
>>a licensing model and Cherokee Nation Copyrights that renders the 
>>code sovereign and immune from litigation outside of tribal courts
>>and jurisdiction.  So much for all the SCO and other legal wranglings
>>regarding this effort and open source in general.  We are immune from
>>these people and so are any projects that use our licensing or host 
>>on our servers.  I personally told Darl "Mad Dog" McBride at SCO 
>>good luck and to buzz off.  
>>    
>>
>[...]
>
>As interesting and informative as this is, maybe there needs to be a
>mailing list (linux-politics-discuss?) or something to serve as an
>appropriate outlet for these kinds of discussions (as well as bitkeeper
>licensing issues, C++ modules, etc.). It's a bit difficult to
>appreciate the relevance of this kind of "political" message to a list
>dedicated to kernel programming and cold, hard code.
>
>Congratulations on your new directions and position. I hope there will
>soon be a place for which your informative announcements are more
>appropriate than linux-kernel.
>
>
>- wli
>
>  
>
Linux Kernel is the most appropriate since it is Linux kernel code and 
open source
in general and this does prevent the SCO legal ranglings with Linux. For 
now, anyway.
That will hcnage as the SCO litigation develops and M$ starts their 
patent attacks. Open
Source OS's will need a safe harbor. One just appeared.

Jeff

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Horst von Brand]

"Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@mail.gadugi.org> said:
> This is the final post on this particular thread.  I said I would
> reveal to LKML the purpose behind this original proposal when the time
> was right.  The GPL buyout offer has now expired and is formally closed,
> now is the time to explian.

Thanks for the end.

> The purpose behind the buyout was to convert as much Linux code over as
> possible to another open source operating system project which is
> sponsored at www.gadugi.org.  This project is hosted by the Cherokee
> Nation and is sovereign under US Federal Laws.  This project is merging
> the Linux Kernel with the Open Source NetWare project and distributing
> the operating system.  The site is operational and the full code
> repository will be posted with the merged operating system after the
> Cherokee Nation Public License is published in January.  Anyone who
> wishes to participate can email the site and get an account.

Right. But the Cherokee Nation would have to be recognized, and it would
have to adhere to the Berne Convention and a lot of other stuff for this to
make any kind of difference. Plus they would need the international clout
to make their decisions stick. I.e., it won't help a bit.

What is wrong with GPL for the kernel? That could be a useful discussion
(just not here, please). Also note that some 80% of OSS is under GPL/LPGL,
so staying compatible with those licenses is very important on its own
right.

What is wrong with starting with the *BSDs for the merged OS, if GPL won't
do for some weird reason?

Besides, had you asked politely if the LKML crowd would consider a change
in license to the kernel _for a purpose like you say here_, and _coherent_
reasons for a change in license, there would have been quite a bit more
receptiveness. But, as the kernel has thousands of contributors whose work
is _very_ difficult to separate (probably more than just building the whole
shebang from scratch), the point is moot anyway.

[...]

> We are adopting Federal Copyright and Trademark law, and Federal Patent
> law into our courts.  We are also enacting trade secret laws that make it
> easier for folks to claim trade secrets on Open Source code for 
> individual authors.  

Good luck with "secrets" that are shared the world over. I somehow doubt
that will go over well in other jurisdictions in the US. Not to mention
that "trade secrets" just aren't protected as such in other parts of the
world (here I could get sued for, say, breaking and entering and/or not
honoring the contract with my employer, but not for publishing a trade
secret).

IANAL, anyway.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Horst von Brand wrote:

>Right. But the Cherokee Nation would have to be recognized, and it would
>have to adhere to the Berne Convention and a lot of other stuff for this to
>make any kind of difference. Plus they would need the international clout
>to make their decisions stick. I.e., it won't help a bit.
>  
>

We are an A8 classified orgnaization with the Federal Government.  This 
means we come
before handicapped businesses and minorities for government purchases, 
and the highest
levels of the Federal Government are aware of this project.  This also 
means is a situation
where the United States is using Open source, Federal Law requires ours 
be used instead
of Linux or BSD. 

>What is wrong with GPL for the kernel? That could be a useful discussion
>(just not here, please). Also note that some 80% of OSS is under GPL/LPGL,
>so staying compatible with those licenses is very important on its own
>right.
>
>What is wrong with starting with the *BSDs for the merged OS, if GPL won't
>do for some weird reason?
>
>Besides, had you asked politely if the LKML crowd would consider a change
>in license to the kernel _for a purpose like you say here_, and _coherent_
>reasons for a change in license, there would have been quite a bit more
>receptiveness. But, as the kernel has thousands of contributors whose work
>is _very_ difficult to separate (probably more than just building the whole
>shebang from scratch), the point is moot anyway.
>
>[...]
>  
>
I don't believe this one bit.  LKML has some very good folks but it also 
has some very immature and childish folks with thier own agendas.  It 
also has a lot of folks from post-
communist Europe and the views of many of these people are not aligned 
with captilist
viewpoints.  There will always be hecklers and idiots who just don't get 
it, and it really
doesn't matter one bit.  The verdict's in, the light moves forward.

:-)

Jeff

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

"Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@gadugi.org> writes:

>We are an A8 classified orgnaization with the Federal Government.  This 
>means we come
>before handicapped businesses and minorities for government purchases, 
>and the highest

>From this place of the world here, your "nation" is part of the United
States of America (U.S.A.). For the purposes of international law,
your "nation" would have to be subject to the international court of
justice in The Hague, an institiution that is not recognized by the
U.S.A.

So I don't care about any "federal governement classified
organization". As long as your "nation" does not have a seat at the
U.N., you are a part of the U.S.A., just as Kansas.

End of story. Stop spreading FUD.

	Regards
		Henning


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen          INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de        +49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
   Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development

What is more important to you...
   [ ] Product Security
or [ ] Quality of Sales and Marketing Support
              -- actual question from a Microsoft customer survey

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jeff V. Merkey]

> 
> >From this place of the world here, your "nation" is part of the United
> States of America (U.S.A.). For the purposes of international law,
> your "nation" would have to be subject to the international court of
> justice in The Hague, an institiution that is not recognized by the
> U.S.A.
> 
> So I don't care about any "federal governement classified
> organization". As long as your "nation" does not have a seat at the
> U.N., you are a part of the U.S.A., just as Kansas.
> 
> End of story. Stop spreading FUD.
> 
> 	Regards
> 		Henning

This was the subject of a discussion in Washington DC in the oval 
office during the signing of the Presidential Order by George Bush
validating our sovereign power in the US.  We have representation
through the United States Government, and I discussed this project
with the Federal head of Education for the United States in 
October when the Museum of the American Indian was dedicated in
Washington.  

I am confident President Bush will adequately represent our interests
at the UN.  All members of Linux are welcome to participate with us,
and since I am married to a German citizen who was just taken into
our Nation, you are welcome too Henning.  

Jeff

P.S.  I am traveling to Germany in March with my wife to visit her 
family. If you let me know where you are in Germany, I'll pop in 
for a visit.

:-)

  

> 
> 
> -- 
> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen          INTERMETA GmbH
> hps@intermeta.de        +49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/
> 
> RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
>    Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development
> 
> What is more important to you...
>    [ ] Product Security
> or [ ] Quality of Sales and Marketing Support
>               -- actual question from a Microsoft customer survey
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[David Woodhouse]

On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 15:27 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> We are adopting Federal Copyright and Trademark law, and Federal Patent
> law into our courts.  We are also enacting trade secret laws that make it
> easier for folks to claim trade secrets on Open Source code for 
> individual authors.  

Why? You're not a signatory to the Berne Convention and thus surely you
don't need to honour it? You can just re-use the GPL'd code without our
permission, and make your law permit it. You could adopt US copyright
law with exceptions for the Linux kernel. There's precedent for such
exceptions -- see what the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
has to say about Peter Pan, for example:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_28.htm#sdiv6

And enacting the US patent law is absurd -- why would you want to copy
something as broken and abusable as that?

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout

[Jeff V. Merkey]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:04:32PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 15:27 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > We are adopting Federal Copyright and Trademark law, and Federal Patent
> > law into our courts.  We are also enacting trade secret laws that make it
> > easier for folks to claim trade secrets on Open Source code for 
> > individual authors.  
> 
> Why? You're not a signatory to the Berne Convention and thus surely you
> don't need to honour it? You can just re-use the GPL'd code without our
> permission, and make your law permit it. You could adopt US copyright
> law with exceptions for the Linux kernel. There's precedent for such
> exceptions -- see what the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
> has to say about Peter Pan, for example:
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_28.htm#sdiv6
> 
> And enacting the US patent law is absurd -- why would you want to copy
> something as broken and abusable as that?
> 
> -- 
> dwmw2
> 


David,

Anyone on this list who is a Kernel Developer can sign up an account
on Ga-du-gi.org and post your own proposed legislation and draft 
language.  I will even grant you the ability to publish stories and 
commentary on the site with proposed legislation and laws to 
protect open source. 

Send an email to jmerkey@gadugi.org and say,

" Jeff, I want to post my views on Cherokee Nation legislation and my 
proposals on the adoption of Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Trade Secret,
and Intellectual Property legislation for the creation of a Sovereign
Open Source License and legal framework.  I am a Linux Kernel developer,
and I have a unique insight into the challenges and development of 
open source and my knowledge and experience are relevant to the 
proposed laws.  I would like to share my experience and knowledge 
regarding this topic to the Cherokee Nation and assist them in drafting
appropriate legislation."

and I will allow you and other Linux Community members to post 
content and proposed legal briefs on the site, and help us accomplish
this task.  The Tribal Council is slated to review drafts in early 
February.

Jeff

Jeff