The Draft legislation can be found at http://www.gadugi.org
The Cherokee Nation is submitting draft Trade Secret Legislation to the Information Technology
and Open Source Community for comments.
This legislation Will be voted on in the Rules Committee Jan 17 and will be presented for
ratification to the Full Tribal Council on February 14, 2005. This legislation is designed
to protect trade secrets for both open source development and general public licensing
schemes as well as proprietary technology developed in the commerical sector.
All Industry members are invited to submit comments and suggestions regarding this
legislation prior to submission to the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council for ratification.
The Draft Cherokee Nation open source public license will be posted this week as well.
Your views on patent legislation, and trade secret legislation are welcome.
Wa-do
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:36:46PM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:04:14 CST, root said:
>
> > This legislation Will be voted on in the Rules Committee Jan 17 and will be presented for
> > ratification to the Full Tribal Council on February 14, 2005. This legislation is designed
> > to protect trade secrets for both open source development and general public licensing
> > schemes as well as proprietary technology developed in the commerical sector.
>
> I fail to see how you can *possibly* have "trade secret" rights in open source
> software. At least not in any way interoperable with any other country's usage
> of the term "trade secret".
>
> It's one thing to be smoking a peace pipe. Totally another to be smoking a
> crack pipe.
>
>
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.
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):
(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 --
(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and
(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
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".
In fact, you're going to have a hard time - if you're not a sovereign nation,
then 18 USC 1839 will trump your law. And if you *are* a sovereign nation,
you better get some lobbyists that can read and understand the implications
of 19 USC 2242(a)(1)(A) and/or 19 USC 2242(b)(1).....
From: [email protected]
>
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:04:14 CST, root said:
> > This legislation Will be voted on in the Rules Committee
> > Jan 17 and will be presented for
> > ratification to the Full Tribal Council on February 14,
> > 2005. This legislation is designed
> > to protect trade secrets for both open source development
> > and general public licensing
> > schemes as well as proprietary technology developed in the
> > commerical sector.
>
> I fail to see how you can *possibly* have "trade secret"
> rights in open source
> software. At least not in any way interoperable with any
> other country's usage
> of the term "trade secret".
Nor is it compatible with the definitions of the words "public" and
"secret" in the English language...
--
Stephen Warren, Software Engineer, NVIDIA, Fort Collins, CO
[email protected] http://www.nvidia.com/
[email protected] http://www.wwwdotorg.org/pgp.html
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Stephen Warren wrote:
> From: [email protected]
>>
>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:04:14 CST, root said:
>>> This legislation Will be voted on in the Rules Committee
>>> Jan 17 and will be presented for
>>> ratification to the Full Tribal Council on February 14,
>>> 2005. This legislation is designed
>>> to protect trade secrets for both open source development
>>> and general public licensing
>>> schemes as well as proprietary technology developed in the
>>> commerical sector.
>>
>> I fail to see how you can *possibly* have "trade secret"
>> rights in open source
>> software. At least not in any way interoperable with any
>> other country's usage
>> of the term "trade secret".
>
> Nor is it compatible with the definitions of the words "public" and
> "secret" in the English language...
>
These "Indian Nations" create and use special meanings for
common words. For instance "No" becomes a "No clause" that
could mean "yes" in certain instances like bypassing state
taxes and running casinos. They have even been able to resurrect
"tribes" that have long ago been assimilated and their
"reservations" sold as farm land. Mohegan comes to mind.
I suspect that the proposed "Act" displayed on the http://www.gagugi.org
web-page is either a hoax, some kind of hard-to-understand joke,
or the scribblings of idiots.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.10 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 11:35, [email protected] 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
> > 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.
root <[email protected]> writes:
>> > 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.
If the code is available from a public http server, that doesn't make
any sense at all.
> 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
What about the rest of the world? I'm sure nobody in Europe is bound
in any way by US laws.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:32:21 CST, root said:
> If the license says the receipient of a piece of code must acknowledge
> and protect the trade secrets it contains, then it's enforceable.
To protect a secret means making at least some attempt to keep it from
becoming general knowledge. If you can come up with a *practical* way
to give me a piece of *open source* software that contains a trade secret
and still keep it a secret, we'd all (especially the guys at NVidia ;) would
love to know it.
Hint: I doubt the guys at opensource.org will approve a license that involves
an NDA...
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:55:45 +0100, =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= said:
> What about the rest of the world? I'm sure nobody in Europe is bound
> in any way by US laws.
That's what the head of governments of Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq thought, too ;)
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 22:55 +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
[...]
> What about the rest of the world? I'm sure nobody in Europe is bound
> in any way by US laws.
Directly, yes.
But indirectly they go the way over Brussels, lobbying etc. to get
similar insane laws and regulations.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:27:09PM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:32:21 CST, root said:
>
> > If the license says the receipient of a piece of code must acknowledge
> > and protect the trade secrets it contains, then it's enforceable.
>
> To protect a secret means making at least some attempt to keep it from
> becoming general knowledge. If you can come up with a *practical* way
> to give me a piece of *open source* software that contains a trade secret
> and still keep it a secret, we'd all (especially the guys at NVidia ;) would
> love to know it.
Stay tuned ....
>
> Hint: I doubt the guys at opensource.org will approve a license that involves
> an NDA...
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
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 02:03:30PM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> >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
It's as open as linux is today. Think about it. Linux really isn't
"free" or "open" since it has the concept of personal ownership of
the code. Linus himself responded to the GPL buyout offer and stated
"his" code would remain GPL. Linus was exercising his rights of
ownerhsip by making this statement.
"open" means it's open for contribution and attribution from others,
but none of it is really "free" since someone owns it and can exercise
the rights of that ownership, including deciding what license scheme
it will be under, and in some cases, litigating to stop people from
using it in certain circumstances.
Under the current Linux umbrella with the GPL, "open" and "free"
are ephemisms for "contribution" and "attribution." The one exception
this ;icense places is it removes the ability of other to coop or
steal an individuals work. This model we are proposing is no different
from what Linux operates under today -- with one exception -- an author
can protect their work from being ripped off by various projects
claiming to be open and it prevents the "mob" mentality from
circumventing someone elses rights to their creative works by
preventing the majority from ousting a minority contributor
and taking their work by brute force.
Something the GPL professes to provide to copyright holders, but really
doens't. This model also makes open source projects commerically
viable by allowing groups, individuals, and organizations the
ability to enforce their rights in state courts with trade secret
claims.
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:00:35PM -0600, root wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 02:03:30PM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > >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
>
> It's as open as linux is today. Think about it. Linux really isn't
> "free" or "open" since it has the concept of personal ownership of
> the code. Linus himself responded to the GPL buyout offer and stated
> "his" code would remain GPL. Linus was exercising his rights of
> ownerhsip by making this statement.
>
Wrong. Seems I have to explain in great detail:
The linux source may not be entirely _free_, because the GPL
says, among a few other things, that you can't change the licence.
But it is definitely _open_, because there is no restriction on who
you can give the code to.
Code with trade secrets in it may or may not be "free of charge"
but it is definitely not _open_. As others have pointed out, the
laws about trade secrets _require_ that reasonable measures
be taken so the secret doesn't get out - or the secret is void.
Open source is something I can put on a public webserver, where even
someone's competitor is able to get at it. Code with a trade secret
in it cannot be given away like that. Making the secret part available to
the above mentioned competitor would break the secret, and is therefore
illegal if trade secret protection is required by licence. Therefore,
such code cannot be put in a public place, therefore such code
is _not_ open, even if it might happen to be "free of charge".
Helge Hafting
> "open" means it's open for contribution and attribution from others,
> but none of it is really "free" since someone owns it and can exercise
> the rights of that ownership, including deciding what license scheme
> it will be under, and in some cases, litigating to stop people from
> using it in certain circumstances.
>
> Under the current Linux umbrella with the GPL, "open" and "free"
> are ephemisms for "contribution" and "attribution." The one exception
> this ;icense places is it removes the ability of other to coop or
> steal an individuals work. This model we are proposing is no different
> from what Linux operates under today -- with one exception -- an author
> can protect their work from being ripped off by various projects
> claiming to be open and it prevents the "mob" mentality from
> circumventing someone elses rights to their creative works by
> preventing the majority from ousting a minority contributor
> and taking their work by brute force.
>
> Something the GPL professes to provide to copyright holders, but really
> doens't. This model also makes open source projects commerically
> viable by allowing groups, individuals, and organizations the
> ability to enforce their rights in state courts with trade secret
> claims.
>
>
>
[email protected] 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):
>
> (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 --
>
> (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and
>
> (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
>
> 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".
>
> In fact, you're going to have a hard time - if you're not a sovereign nation,
> then 18 USC 1839 will trump your law. And if you *are* a sovereign nation,
> you better get some lobbyists that can read and understand the implications
> of 19 USC 2242(a)(1)(A) and/or 19 USC 2242(b)(1).....
hello all
sorry about this question but i didn't understand something in all this
"trade secret" situation...
first: Is there any impact in GNU GPL?
second: does this US law means that everything could be a "trade
secret"? even something like the GUI? or a process bar? and in case
that someone will register them what is going to happens?
third: this under US law, is it applied in EU etc????
thanks for your time
Christos
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:03:31 GMT, christos gentsis said:
> sorry about this question but i didn't understand something in all this
> "trade secret" situation...
>
> first: Is there any impact in GNU GPL?
I'm not a lawyer, just a sysadmin/programmer who follows this sort of stuff,
but it's most likely that this will not impact GPL-licensed software, because
it isn't attempting to restrict what things can be put into GPL software.
If anything, all this law *actually* does is get Cherokee law to match what
current US law *already* says.
> second: does this US law means that everything could be a "trade
> secret"? even something like the GUI? or a process bar? and in case
> that someone will register them what is going to happens?
It's not a US law - it's a proposed Cherokee law (In the US, there exist
some Indian reservations that are somewhat autonomous and able to make their
own laws).
The actual text of the law as proposed is posted at
http://www.gadugi.org/article.php?story=2005010611364165
The Cherokee law would apparently *ban* publishing open source that
contains a trade secret, as that would be a "Willful breach or willful
inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy;" and therefor a no-no.
(Logic - (1)(d)(i) says it has to be a secret, (1)(d)(ii) says you have to
apply reasonable efforts to *keep* it secret. Therefore, *publishing* it
would be an "improper" means under (1)(a)(iv), and thus (1)(b)(ii)(B) makes it
"misappropriation"..)
The company can't even claim there is no "breach" or "improper means" because
they intended to publish the source code as open source - because then it no
longer meets the "subject of reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy"
requirement. If you're not even trying to keep it a secret, it's not a secret.
> third: this under US law, is it applied in EU etc????
It isn't even clear that this law would apply in the US, much less in the EU.
But that's OK, because there's no real danger here, unless you were hoping to
use the Cherokee law to protect secrets in code you publish as open source....
There is no impact on the GPL and any Linux code covered under the GPL
remains as such. The Ga-du-gi OS is defined under the current FSF
definitions as a "collective work" not a "derivative work". So all the
folks sending mail to LKML and gadugi.org that implies otherwise
are out in the weeds.
It just Linux with a new kernel underneath as an /arch port at present.
Over time, most of the GPL code will be replaced and at the option of
copyright holders, possibly converted to another license. The advantage
to the latter is it will stop a lot of the SCO flak and the critics of
open source.
The GPL does not specify anywhere that GPL code cannot be incorporated
into a "collective work". So this wrong-headed notion that using GPL
code mixed with non-GPL code renders a project a "derivative work" is
absurd and unenforceable.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:49:45AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:03:31 GMT, christos gentsis said:
>
> > sorry about this question but i didn't understand something in all this
> > "trade secret" situation...
> >
> > first: Is there any impact in GNU GPL?
>
> I'm not a lawyer, just a sysadmin/programmer who follows this sort of stuff,
> but it's most likely that this will not impact GPL-licensed software, because
> it isn't attempting to restrict what things can be put into GPL software.
>
> If anything, all this law *actually* does is get Cherokee law to match what
> current US law *already* says.
>
> > second: does this US law means that everything could be a "trade
> > secret"? even something like the GUI? or a process bar? and in case
> > that someone will register them what is going to happens?
>
> It's not a US law - it's a proposed Cherokee law (In the US, there exist
> some Indian reservations that are somewhat autonomous and able to make their
> own laws).
>
> The actual text of the law as proposed is posted at
> http://www.gadugi.org/article.php?story=2005010611364165
>
> The Cherokee law would apparently *ban* publishing open source that
> contains a trade secret, as that would be a "Willful breach or willful
> inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy;" and therefor a no-no.
>
> (Logic - (1)(d)(i) says it has to be a secret, (1)(d)(ii) says you have to
> apply reasonable efforts to *keep* it secret. Therefore, *publishing* it
> would be an "improper" means under (1)(a)(iv), and thus (1)(b)(ii)(B) makes it
> "misappropriation"..)
>
> The company can't even claim there is no "breach" or "improper means" because
> they intended to publish the source code as open source - because then it no
> longer meets the "subject of reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy"
> requirement. If you're not even trying to keep it a secret, it's not a secret.
>
> > third: this under US law, is it applied in EU etc????
>
> It isn't even clear that this law would apply in the US, much less in the EU.
>
> But that's OK, because there's no real danger here, unless you were hoping to
> use the Cherokee law to protect secrets in code you publish as open source....
>
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 07:03 +0000, christos gentsis wrote:
[...]
> third: this under US law, is it applied in EU etc????
In EU, no US law is applied automatically. At least in theory.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 09:18, root wrote:
OK I've replied to this as well at
http://www.gadugi.org/article.php?story=20041221121621283 ...
I think that your understanding of the implications of the GPL seem to
be dangerously flawed in some respects.
>
>
> There is no impact on the GPL and any Linux code covered under the GPL
> remains as such. The Ga-du-gi OS is defined under the current FSF
> definitions as a "collective work" not a "derivative work". So all the
> folks sending mail to LKML and gadugi.org that implies otherwise
> are out in the weeds.
The below should also be at the above mentioned url...
OK the extent of the fork has been mentioned.
However you should note that both the GPL and LGPL only give conditional
permission to include code licensed under those terms into "collective
works". Your code that is under "/arch" sure sounds like it is
interdependant with the rest of the kernel code. Further it is not a
"separate work" and a kernel compiled with your "arch" changes can't be
shipped into two independant separate binaries-- it forms one
inseparable whole that contains incompatibily licensed code. The GPL
doesn't give anyone permission to include code licensed under those
terms in these conditions.
It would be instructive for you to compare and contrast the GPL and the
LGPL to notice that altogether not giving permission to create
inseparable, dependent works that add restrictions was *intended*. If
the developers wanted to allow you to do what it is you are attempting
they would have choosen the LGPL or another license.
You should note that the kernel developers would like to see more
successful Linux forks -- you are in fact given an explicit license to
create forks the GPL. However that is your only license to do so and if
you choose to ignore it's boundaries after being repeatiibly and
publicly warned, then you are likely to incure civil liabilites from
being found a willful premeditated copyright infringer in a few
jurisdictions around the world.
I strongly suggest that instead of assuming that you seek competent
legal advice or take an educational seminar, read a faq or two or
otherwise education yourself to what the GPL implies.
So please instead of complaining that people are "out in the weeds" or
creating a "smoke screen". Maybe you should listen a little.
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0501.1/1425.html
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.txt
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/lgpl.txt
http://patron.fsf.org/course-offering.html
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
--
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
The current Gadugi implementation has compiled the Linux kernel as a
standalone elf64 module that loads as
an application on the Gadugi kernel, with the /arch portions stripped
and mapped into Gadugi. Gadugi has it's
own elf64 loader (non-GPL). The GPL language states that the "collective
work" definition refers to code sections
which constitute part of a "whole" unpo which the "separate" work in based.
This is a collective work which is "not based upon Linux", Linux runs as
a kernel app. Provided the two
code bases remain separate, there are no GPL issues with the current
language. Gadugi is a separate
elf64 module with it's own loader, services, etc. The fact that Linux
is now "based on" another operating
system reverses the license language (thanks Richard S. for inserting
this) and the GPL also states
that independent works are "separate" and not affected by this license.
I realize there may be many people who take issue with this, but this is
the laguage, and yes, GPL code can be taken and
used this way. The two code bases are maintained seprately and not
compiled together. But Linux can be loaded
as as Elf application, and in this sense it is a "seperate" work and
whole in itself.
Stephen Pollei wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 09:18, root wrote:
>OK I've replied to this as well at
>http://www.gadugi.org/article.php?story=20041221121621283 ...
>I think that your understanding of the implications of the GPL seem to
>be dangerously flawed in some respects.
>
>
>>There is no impact on the GPL and any Linux code covered under the GPL
>>remains as such. The Ga-du-gi OS is defined under the current FSF
>>definitions as a "collective work" not a "derivative work". So all the
>>folks sending mail to LKML and gadugi.org that implies otherwise
>>are out in the weeds.
>>
>>
>
>The below should also be at the above mentioned url...
>
>OK the extent of the fork has been mentioned.
>However you should note that both the GPL and LGPL only give conditional
>permission to include code licensed under those terms into "collective
>works". Your code that is under "/arch" sure sounds like it is
>interdependant with the rest of the kernel code. Further it is not a
>"separate work" and a kernel compiled with your "arch" changes can't be
>shipped into two independant separate binaries-- it forms one
>inseparable whole that contains incompatibily licensed code. The GPL
>doesn't give anyone permission to include code licensed under those
>terms in these conditions.
>
>It would be instructive for you to compare and contrast the GPL and the
>LGPL to notice that altogether not giving permission to create
>inseparable, dependent works that add restrictions was *intended*. If
>the developers wanted to allow you to do what it is you are attempting
>they would have choosen the LGPL or another license.
>
>You should note that the kernel developers would like to see more
>successful Linux forks -- you are in fact given an explicit license to
>create forks the GPL. However that is your only license to do so and if
>you choose to ignore it's boundaries after being repeatiibly and
>publicly warned, then you are likely to incure civil liabilites from
>being found a willful premeditated copyright infringer in a few
>jurisdictions around the world.
>
>I strongly suggest that instead of assuming that you seek competent
>legal advice or take an educational seminar, read a faq or two or
>otherwise education yourself to what the GPL implies.
>
>So please instead of complaining that people are "out in the weeds" or
>creating a "smoke screen". Maybe you should listen a little.
>
>http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0501.1/1425.html
>http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.txt
>http://www.fsf.org/licenses/lgpl.txt
>http://patron.fsf.org/course-offering.html
>http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>
>
>
On 12.01.2005, at 18:18, root wrote:
> There is no impact on the GPL and any Linux code covered under the GPL
> remains as such. The Ga-du-gi OS is defined under the current FSF
> definitions as a "collective work" not a "derivative work". So all the
> folks sending mail to LKML and gadugi.org that implies otherwise
> are out in the weeds.
Apart from the fact that someone writing mail as root can't be
taken seriously I would suggest that you
a) take the discussion elsewhere because it is more than off-topic
b) stop smoking the pipe
c) consider renaming your project to balla-balla because that one
is easier to remember and somewhat fits the description of your
goals
Servus,
Daniel
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, christos gentsis wrote:
> second: does this US law means that everything could be a "trade
> secret"? even something like the GUI? or a process bar? and in case that
> someone will register them what is going to happens?
Only secrets can be trade secrets.
As soon as somebody else figures it out and publishes it,
it's no longer a secret, and can no longer be a trade
secret.
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
Rik van Riel wrote:
> Only secrets can be trade secrets.
I think he's just trying to re-invent patents under a different
name. IMHO, this isn't necessarily an outright lunatic idea, but
I wouldn't be surprised if it received a friendlier reception if
contradictory naming could be avoided.
- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina [email protected] /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/