Re: OT Re: Cherokee Nation Posts Open Source Legisation

[Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@hist.no>]

root wrote:

>>>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.  
>
Sure, but if there is a secret that must be protected, then it
isn't open source! 

By definition: open source is something I can give to absolutely anybody
with no reservations.  I.e. no need to protect anything. 

So your law means you can give someone code with the restriction that
they protect the trade secret within, but such code is not open source.
It may be less restrictive than many other commercial/proprietary licences,
(i.e. you can give it away for free, for example) but it is not _open_
with such restrictions. 

The linux source for example, can be given to anybody with no
reservations other than that the GPL is respected.  (The GPL does not
limit redistribution though.) 

Helge Hafting